asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has anything to report to the House in connection with the recent rioting in India?

asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any fresh statement to make on the conditions in India?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government has been in communication with the Government of India as to the arrest of Gandhi?

As has been reported in the Press, Mr. Gandhi was arrested this morning and is detained under the Bombay State Prisoners' Regulation of 1827. In supplement to my reply of 29th April, I may say I have no official reports of fresh serious disturbances, but I have received an account of the riot in Madras on 27th April and also of an unsuccessful hartal attempted in Calcutta on the 1st May. As regards Peshawar, where conditions have been difficult since the riots on 23rd April, my information is that the authorities are in complete control of the situation. The Peshawar District has been declared a proclaimed area under the Seditious Meetings Act.

Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of question No. 18 or is he not in a position to do so?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find that point covered in the reply which I have given.

Under what conditions is Mr. Gandhi being kept in gaol, whether as a first-class misdemeanant or an ordinary prisoner?

I cannot say without notice.

Will Mr. Gandhi be charged and tried?

No, Sir. It is intended to keep him detained under the regulations.

In view of the serious position in India, will the right hon. Gentleman make a supreme effort to reach a settlement?

The policy of the Government in inviting a conference of Indian leaders stands despite everything that has happened.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position yet to make a statement as to the cause of the trouble in Peshawar?

I can add nothing to the communiqué which has been issued.

Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain, as soon as possible, an account of what actually occurred at Peshawar in view of the fact that up to now the accounts which have appeared in the Press have been rather partial, and certain rumours have appeared which it is very desirable should be contradicted. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that by means of a written answer to a question or by some other means an account is published?

Perhaps my Noble Friend will allow me to deal with that matter when I answer question No. 19.

asked the Secretary of State for India the reason for the arrest of the 11 local congress leaders at Peshawar; and whether arrests of congress leaders are taking place only on the ground of alleged breaches of the law or whether leadership in the congress party, either national or local, is being regarded as sufficient ground for arrest?

I am informed that these arrests were made for breaches of the ordinary law, and so far as I know all recent arrests, except those made for precautionary reasons in Bengal under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, fall within this description. There is, therefore, I believe, no foundation for the suggestion made at the end of my hon. Friend's question.

Does the arrest of Mr. Gandhi fall within this description?

No, that is a special case.

asked the Secretary of State for India the cause of the Native rioting at Peshawar on 23rd April, when the mob poured burning paraffin over two armoured cars and set them alight, two of the occupants being burned to death; whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage; and the number of soldiers, police, and British civilians who have been killed or seriously injured by rioters up to the present time?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Baronet to my answer to the Leader of the Opposition on 29th April.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as soon as practicable, publishing a full and precise account, in view of the fact that it is very difficult to get anything but partial accounts from the newspapers, and that it is very desirable that this House and the public should be in full possession of what exactly did occur?

I quite agree, but I would remind the Noble Lord that the Government have already issued a communiqué on the events at. Peshawar. It shall be supplemented as soon as possible.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the report in the Press that armoured cars were driven over Indians lying in the streets, and cannot some statement be made regarding the facts of the case?

I saw the statement in the newspaper, but I have no other news of it.

Is not the statement in the first part of this question, with regard to burning paraffin being poured over two armoured cars, and two of the occupants being burned to death as a result, absolutely true beyond question?

A communiqué has been issued on the matter, and shall be supplemented as soon as the circumstances permit. Beyond that, I really cannot say anything.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has anything further to report to the House regarding the increase in the Indian cotton import duties or in connection with the boycotting of Lancashire cotton goods in India?

The Bill providing for the new duties has been passed with the amendment stated in my reply to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 24th March. As regards the last part of the question, I have just heard from the Government of India that the efforts to establish a boycott of British and foreign goods have so far been mainly concentrated on cloth and have increased in intensity during the past 10 days. Some importers of cloth have given promises not to place further orders for some months, but so far few promises appear to have been given not to sell existing stocks.

Can the Secretary of State take any action with regard to the latter part of the question to stop boycotting?

If the law is broken, no doubt action will be taken.

In the interests of the Lancashire cotton trade can he do anything to make the situation easier?

Is it not obvious that boycotting is one of the things that will arise out of a state of unrest?

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is a British Cabinet Minister and that he has certain duties to the people of this country?

asked the Secretary of State for India, what progress has been made with the arrangements necessary for carrying out the proposals in regard to the Indian military service family pensions contained in the circular letter issued by the India Office in July, 1927; and if he will explain the reasons for the continual delay in the fulfilment of the promise made to hasten a decision in this matter?

This question is bound up with the adjustment between the Indian and Imperial Governments of a number of claims and counterclaims arising out of the War. I greatly regret the delay that has occurred, and I am sparing no effort to reach a settlement.

While I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, may I ask whether he is aware of the fact that this matter has been pending since the days of the War, and is it not rather hard on the widows of the men who served in the War to be told 10 or 11 years after the War that a settlement has not yet been possible between the home Government and the Indian Government?

I am fully conscious of the disadvantages arising from delay.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he is now able to announce his decision regarding the present disabilities suffered by the personnel, single and married, of the Indian Ordnance Department; whether be has now completed his inquiries into the present conditions governing leave passage; and, if so, can he state whether any reforms are contemplated?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet come to a decision over the representations and memorial of the Foremen's Association of India; whether any decision has been arrived at over the passage question or with regard to the independent committee asked for in 1927 by the Master-General of Supply to in quire into this and other causes of discontent among the foremen?

The most urgent point outstanding has been the grant of free passages, and these have now been given with effect from 1st April last. I am at the moment considering the remaining points represented by the Foremen's Association, including that mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to appoint a committee to go into their grievances for which they ask in the latter part of the question?

I cannot give any undertaking beyond what I have said in the answer which I have just given.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that at the All-India Muslim Conference for Palestine, held in Bombay, resolutions were passed protesting against the present treatment of their co-religionists in Palestine and arranging for the celebration of Palestine Day all over India, Burma, and Ceylon on 16th May; and whether he is taking any steps to allay the anxieties of the 70,000,000 Moslems in India, and has he had any correspondence with the Government of India on the subject?

I have received a telegram giving the resolutions adopted by the meeting referred to, and am in correspondence with the Government of India.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is very great anxiety felt by the Mohammedans as to their position in Palestine, and can he make representations to the Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the great danger of the continuance of the present state of affairs in India?

I am well aware of the interest taken by Mohammedans in India in the state of affairs in Palestine.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these resolutions were supported by some of the most responsible Moslems in India, and when he receives a copy of the resolutions will he see that they are sent to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Colonies?

I think that has been done. If not, I will see that it is done.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is a very unfortunate thing to try to accentuate the differences between Moslems and Hindus?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the disaffection of certain Indian troops at Peshawar last week was an isolated action; and whether they have been replaced by British troops?

I am informed by the Government of India that there has been no sign of any similar incident elsewhere. As announced last Tuesday, the battalion in question was withdrawn from Peshawar at once. It was replaced by a Gurkha battalion.

asked the Secretary of State for India what is the present strength of the British Forces in India; whether they are under establishment; and, if so, by what number?

The strength on 1st April last was approximately 59,700. The establishment is 59,915.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few months ago he stated in an answer to me that the number was 60,500, and that no change was contemplated? Has the number been reduced?

I will look into the disparity, if it exists.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to institute an inquiry into the arrangements in force in Northern India for the reception and care of emigrants returning from South Africa under the Cape Town agreement, similar to the review which is being made by the Government of the arrangements in force in Southern India?

I have no information regarding such arrangements in Northern India, but if my hon. and gallant Friend desires it I will inquire.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state the total annual contribution made by the Central Government in India towards the upkeep of the leper institutions in India?

So far as I am aware no such contribution is made from central revenues. As public health is a transferred provincial subject, the matter is one for Provincial Governments whose position I stated on the 14th of last month.

asked the Secretary of State for India if any decision has been arrived at by the Council of Agricultural Research in respect of the steps to be taken to reduce the damage caused to crops in India by locusts?

I have not yet heard that any decision has been arrived at. I have however seen a report in the Press some time ago that a sub-committee has been appointed by the council to deal with the question.

asked the Secretary of State for India to what extent news from India to this country is being censored?

Under the Telegraph Act of 1885, the Government of India have powers similar to those enjoyed by all the signatories to the International Telegraph Convention. As to the precise extent to which these powers are at present being exercised, I have no official information; but I am assured by the Government of India that, consistently with the needs of the situation, they will do everything they can not to impede the services rendered by the Press.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the truth about events in India is not being kept from the British public?

Certainly; questions have been asked and answered in this House.

But is my right hon. Friend aware that he answers questions by saying that he himself only has information from the newspapers; and does he not think that it would be very unfortunate if there were any impression that there was difficulty in getting the truth about events in India?

If that impression exists, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will do his best to correct it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the results of the Egyptian Conference?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the progress of negotiations with the representatives of the Egyptian Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement as to the hitch in the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations; and what is the exact cause of the delay in reaching an understanding?

As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) on the 9th April, negotiations were adjourned on that date, and were to be resumed to-day. The courier from Egypt, whose arrival the Egyptian Delegation wished to await, reached London a few hours ago, and negotiations will be resumed at five o'clock this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed, if the proposals set out in the White Paper in regard to Egypt are accepted, to hand over to the mixed courts jurisdiction in matters of statut personnel; and, if so, how it is proposed the system will operate in view of the fact that there is no common territorial law of statut personnel in Egypt which the mixed courts could apply?

Pending the conclusion of the present negotiations, I cannot say more than that the difficulties to which the hon. and gallant Member refers have been borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of the proposals in the White Paper in regard to Egypt being carried through, Egyptians will be appointed to the posts of president and vice-president of the mixed court of appeal and to the presidency and vice-presidency of the first instance courts; and, if so, as an Egyptian will then be qualified to sit alone as president of the summary, referee, and adjudicative courts, how is it proposed to maintain the principle that the majority of judges hearing cases in the mixed courts shall be Europeans?

The points raised by the hon. Member were not mentioned in the Proposals for an Anglo-Egyptian Settlement (Cmd. 3376) to which he refers, and have not been discussed during the present negotiations. No change of the nature suggested by the hon. Member can take place, except as a result of agreement between Egypt and the Capitulatory Powers.

If this is intended under the Proposals, what is the object of pressing a change in the mixed courts, which have nothing whatever to do with the Egyptian people?

I have nailing to add to the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the Governments of South Africa and the Irish Free State are excluded from the commercial agreement lately signed with the representative in London of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reasons South Africa and the Irish Free State are excluded from the provisions of the temporary commercial agreement with Russia; did these two countries give any reasons; and, if so, will he publish them in the form of a White Paper?

Hon. Members will observe, from Command Paper No. 3552, that the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State were excluded from the operation of the Temporary Trade Agreement at the express request of the respective Governments. The reasons which led His Majesty's Governments in the two Dominions to desire such exclusion are a matter for those Governments, and not for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reason for that policy was that these two Governments like the Bolshevik Government less than he does?

Did His Majesty's Governments in these two Dominions give any reasons for not coming into the commercial agreement?

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the clauses relating to hostile and subversive propaganda which were contained in the previous trade agreement with Russia have been omitted from the agreement which has just been signed; and whether he can assure the House that the pledge in the above respect given by the Soviet Ambassador on the resumption of diplomatic relations in December last has been carried out both in this country and in India and the Dominions?

As regards the first part of the question, the exchange of Notes which was laid before this House in Command Paper No. 3467 obviated the necessity for any propaganda clause in the Temporary Commercial Agreement of 16th April last. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have not had occasion, either on their own behalf or at the instance of any Dominion or India, to make any formal representation to the Soviet Government. The attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter remains as stated by me to the House in a reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on 10th March.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the case at Manchester last week of a notorious member of the Third International, who was specially sent to this country for the purpose of fomenting strikes and raising difficulties? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question? It is very important.

It is a question of judgment as to whether it is important. I have seen the statement in the Press and that is all I know about it.

When the right hon. Gentleman says the Government have no occasion to make representations on behalf of the Government of India, do I understand him to say the pledge has been carried out by the Union of Soviet Republics in regard to India, and that Bolshevist propaganda in that country has ceased since December last?

I want the Noble Lord to understand what I say. I have received no representations on the point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in recognising the right of the Russian Soviet Government to succeed to certain properties of the former Tsarist Government under the new trade agreement, he has obtained similar recognition from the Soviet Government as to their responsibility for the debts incurred by their predecessors?

If the hon. Member is referring to the declaration by the Soviet Ambassador appended to the Temporary Commercial Agreement of 16th April, I would observe that this is simply a declaration by the Soviet Government of their claim to the ownership of certain property, and does not connote any recognition of this claim on the part of His Majesty's Government. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Why is this special notification put on the White Paper giving the terms of the agreement when, at the same time, no equivalent statement is made to the British Government as to the debts of the previous Tsarist Government?

I have nothing to add. I say it does not connote that we accept responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the official Soviet trade representative is to be exempted, under Article 2 (4) of the new trading agreement, from responsibility for the acts of State economic organisations, except in cases where such responsibility has been clearly accepted by the trade representative acting for and on behalf of the Soviet Government?

Under Article 2 of the Temporary Commercial Agreement the Soviet Government accept responsibility for all transactions lawfully concluded in the United Kingdom by the Trade Delegation. But, owing to the existence in the Soviet Union of certain economic organisations and syndicates which are not directly responsible in the first instance to the Soviet Government for transactions into which they enter, it is possible that British traders might, in the absence of some such Clause as that contained in Paragraph 4 of Article 2, make contracts with these organisations and syndicates under the impression that the Soviet Government were, at the time when the transaction was concluded, a party to its details. The paragraph in question has, therefore, been inserted purely in order to protect the British trader, by defining clearly the legal liability of the Soviet Government.

Is it not a fact that all trade with Russia is Government trade and, for that reason, it is receiving diplomatic immunity? Why should this special reservation be made in the agreement, which will be most misleading and difficult for traders to observe?

I am not satisfied that all trade is Government trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the diplomatic privileges accorded to the Russian Trade Delegation include the relief of rates on buildings usually accorded to Embassies and Legations?

The agreement with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the subject of rates on the diplomatic premises of the two parties lapsed when diplomatic relations were broken off and has not yet been put into force again. When this has been done, the premises of the Trade Delegation will be exempted from the payment of the usual proportion of rates, in accordance with the terms of the Trade Agreement, whereby the Trade Delegation forms part of the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Similar relief from local taxation will, no doubt, be granted to all the premises occupied by His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow. I may remind the House that, up to the rupture of relations in 1927, the premises of the Trade Delegation enjoyed a corresponding measure of relief from rates.

To how many buildings will this apply? If representatives of the commercial delegation take up other buildings, will this immunity apply?

I have put the position before the House that there have to be two officials under a chief, and their offices have to be immune. Those offices will be in one building.

Do any of the offices include show rooms?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the trade representative of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and his two deputies to whom are accorded diplomatic privileges and immunities?

I have not yet been officially notified of the names of the officials who will occupy these positions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for granting diplomatic privileges and immunities not only to the Soviet trade representative and his two deputies, but also to the offices they occupy, in view of the fact that no other foreign traders in London enjoy such privileges?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply of Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery).

Is not diplomatic immunity for commercial officials an entirely new principle, which has never been granted before?

The right hon. Gentleman put that question to me last Tuesday, when I said that I did not know that it was new. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes for further information, he must put down a question.

Is not the existence of a State which does its trading on a national scale an entirely new fact?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been come to with regard to British vessels fishing off the Murmansk coast arising out of the Russian trade agreement; and what distance from the coast is claimed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as territorial waters?

A Temporary Fisheries Agreement, distinct and separate from the Temporary Commercial Agreement, is at present under negotiation with the Soviet Government in accordance with the provisions of the Protocol of 3rd October last. The instrument, on the terms of which a substantial measure of agreement has already been reached, will deal, inter alia, with the point mentioned in the second part of the question. The hon. and gallant Member will, however, appreciate my inability to enter into details at this stage.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the fishing industry that he will not recognise any extension of the three-mile limit?

I have already answered that I cannot go into details at this moment. The House will have a full opportunity of discussing the matter when the Treaty comes up for ratification.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any settlement has been reached with regard to Soviet debts, in view of the declared policy of His Majesty's Government that negotiations for a trade treaty and settlement of debts and claims will proceed concurrently; and is it now the policy of the Government to make the ratification of a full-trade treaty conditional on a simultaneous settlement of debts and claims?

As regards the first part of the question, agreement has now been reached with the Soviet Government for the establishment of a joint committee of experts and a number of sub-committees for the purpose of examining the bases of settlement of the questions outlined in paragraph 1 (3) of the Protocol of 3rd October. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the supplementary question put by the hon. Member on Wednesday last.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he signs a trade agreement with the Soviet Government, he will have no weapon for negotiation for the settlement of debt?

That is a matter of opinion.

Is it not a matter of common business knowledge?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any officials of the Lena Goldfields Company have been acting as agents of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, in what capacity?

There is no foundation for any suggestion which may have been made that the Lena Goldfields Company or any of its officials were in the employ of, or used for any purpose by, any Department of His Majesty's Government. I may add that no suggestion to this effect has been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government by the Soviet Government.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that these statements have received wide publicity in the Conservative Press in this country?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Crown Prosecutor or the prosecutor for the Bolshevist Government in Russia is charging these men with being agents of the British Government, and in order to save their lives will he instruct the British Minister in Moscow to represent to the Bolshevist Government, that the statements of their prosecutor are without the slightest scintilla of foundation?

Yes, I have seen some such statement in the Press and I will bring it to the notice of the Ambassador.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the lives of these men are at stake, and, seeing that we now have the great advantage of having a representative of the Soviet Government in this country, will he take advantage of that fact and make representations through the proper channels?

I have just said so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of persons now in Russia attached to the British diplomatic and consular services; and whether such persons are allowed full freedom to worship as they think fit or whether they are subject to the restrictions on religious worship imposed by the Soviet Government?

There are at present 12 persons employed in His Majesty's Embassy and consular establishments in the Soviet Union. So far as I am aware, they are perfectly free to worship as they think fit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that in 1918 Mr. Woodhouse, the consul in charge of the British Embassy at Petrograd, in order to obtain the necessary money to discharge his duties, arranged with Mr. C. H. Bucknall, a British subject and a dealer in precious stones in Petrograd, to place certain property at his disposal; if he will state approximately the value of the property so deposited; whether any receipt was given therefor; and if he will state whether the jewels so handed over for the purposes of His Majesty's service were either returned or their value paid over to Mr. Bucknall?

I understand that the case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and which recently formed the subject of an action in the High Court, will be the subject of proceedings in the Court of Appeal. In the circumstances it would not be proper for me to make any statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the rendition of Wei-hai-Wei to China?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay before the House the text of the agreement for the rendition of the Wei-hai-Wei territory which is stated to have been concluded with the Chinese Government?

Negotiations for the rendition of Wei-hai-Wei were begun as a result of the offer to return it to China made at the Washington Conference in 1922, and, after many interruptions owing to changes of government and to civil war in China, have now, I am glad to say, reached a definite conclusion. The general effect of two formal instruments signed at Nanking on 18th April last is that the territory shall be restored in full sovereignty to China on the 1st October next, the British garrison being withdrawn within one month of that date. The port of Wei-hai-Wei will be maintained as an area of international residence and trade, unless the Chinese Government decide to utilise it exclusively as a naval base, and the interests of Chinese and foreign holders of title deeds issued by the British administration have been fully safeguarded against all eventualities; and provision is made for the consultation of foreign residents in such municipal matters as may directly affect their welfare and interests. The Chinese Government will, moreover, loan to His Majesty's Government free of charge, for the use of His Majesty's Navy, certain buildings and other facilities for a period of 10 years, with the option of renewal by agreement between the two Governments.

Does the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that our ships will be able to visit the harbour as heretofore in the summer months, and have full use of it?

As far as I recollect, that is so, but, if the right hon. Gentleman desires definite information, I shall be glad if he will put a question down.

Will the members of the families of the garrison in Hong Kong be able to use Wei-hai-Wei in the summer time for health reasons, as in the past?

I think I must have notice of that question.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the fact that Chinese residents, farmers and local people, strongly hope that the British Government will retain possession of Wei-hai-Wei until more settled conditions obtain?

To which Government in China is it being handed over—the Northern or the Southern?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position regarding the settlement of the Boxer indemnity question; and whether any agreement has yet been reached with the Chinese Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement with respect to the utilisation of the Boxer indemnity surplus has now been initialed by the Chinese and the British Governments; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation this Session to give effect to it?

A draft agreement was initialed by His Majesty's Minister at Peking and the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs on 19th February. The text of the draft is now under consideration. I cannot yet say whether legislation on this subject will be introduced this Session.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far he is co-operating with the Chinese Government to prevent the export of arms, ammunition, and military material into China from this country?

Arms, ammunition, and other military material specified in the Arms Export Prohibition Order, 1921, can only be exported from this country under the licence of His Majesty's Government, and no licence is granted for export to China, unless the British Consular officer at the proposed port of entry reports to me that the Chinese Government has issued a corresponding import permit.

Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe that arms are being sent to China without a licence in this illicit fashion?

No,

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received any representations as to the desirability of altering the Pensions Act so that widows and young children of all ex-officer and other ranks, who die of war injuries, should be thereby covered; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in that direction?

I have received one or two representations on this point. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) on the 17th ultimo, of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many pensioned ex-officers and other ranks have died of war injuries since the Pensions Act, 1921, was passed; how many of them had married after being wounded or otherwise injured in war and so left widows and/or children not provided for by that Act; how many such widows and children are there now; and what would be the annual cost of applying to them the provisions of the Pensions Act for wives married and children born within the periods therein laid down?

I have no record of the aggregate number of deaths that have been caused by war disabilities, as no occasion arises to determine officially the cause of death unless a claim is made by a pensionable survivor. Nor have I any precise information as to the number of officers and men married or of children born to them since the receipt of the war disability, the position as regards pension of the dependants in such cases being determined by the Royal Warrants of 1914 and onwards, and not by the War Pensions Act, 1921. On an approximate estimate, however, based on all the data available, the cost of placing the wives and children of all ex-service officers and men in the same position under Royal Warrants, regardless of the date of marriage or of birth, would be about £7,750,000 rising to £9,250,000 a year.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inform the House of the number of claims submitted outside the seven years' time limit which have been referred to the medical experts for advice; the result of the advice given in each case, and whether such advice has been acted upon by him?

Up to date about 30 cases of material doubt or difficulty have been or are being referred to the in- dependent medical consultants for consideration and advice. Of these, 15 have so far been considered, with results unfavourable to the claim in 14 cases and favourable in one.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of claims for pension that have been submitted by officers and men outside the statutory time limit of seven years; the number of such claims that have been conceded; the number that have been definitely rejected; and the number of claims that have been submitted under this heading since November, 1929, and the number admitted?

I have no record of the total number of applications which have at any time been submitted, but the number of such applications which have been admitted by the Ministry, either by way of pension or treatment, during the eight and a half years up to 30th April last since the time limit became operative, is between 1,000 and 1,100. In the period since November last, some 11,400 fresh applications have been received, and 318 have been accepted for compensation by way of treatment or pension. It will be understood that all the applications have not as yet been dealt with.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of Mrs. L. Wicks, of 17, Lincoln Road, Worcester Park, who was paid a need pension of 8s. per week in respect of her son killed in the War, which pension was reduced to 5s. a week from the 5th December, 1929, on the ground that Mrs. Wicks was in receipt of an old age pension of 10s. per week from that date and was also earning 10s. a week, observing, firstly, that the money earned is derived from precarious employment, secondly, the age of this widow, and thirdly, that she has already been penalised regarding her old age pension on technical grounds, since she was really entitled to it on the 5th December, 1928, but through ignorance omitted to make application for it within the statutory period and therefore did not begin to receive her pension until 5th December, 1929?

Pensions based on need are required to be determined with regard to the actual means of the pensioner, and I should have no authority to treat income derived from old age or other pensions differently from means derived from other sources. It is not, therefore, possible to increase the War pension now in payment to Mrs. Wicks, whose total income is, as the hon. and gallant. Member will be aware, in fact higher now than it was before.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what further names have been added to the panel of representatives who are to assist the Overseas Trade Development Council; and whether this council has yet started to function?

No further names have so far been added to the panel of the Overseas Trade Development Council, but I am pleased to be able to state that Sir Arthur Balfour and Sir William Larke, who were formerly members of the panel have consented to join the standing council. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can give any comparative figures concerning American and English trade with the Soviet of Russia during the last six months.

During the six months ended February last, the values of the imports into the United Kingdom and the United States consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia) were approximately £14,884,000 and £2,148,000, respectively, and the values of the exports (including re-exports) to the Soviet Union (Russia) from the United Kingdom and the United States were approximately £3,983,000 and £13,680,000, respectively. This is the latest period for which figures for the United States are available.

Do not these figures conclusively show that there was no need for any special trade agreement, in view of the fact that United States im- ports are less and their exports are greater than those of this country without a trade agreement?

I am afraid that I do not follow the argument of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give the figures for the year ended 31st March, 1930, of the exports from this country to Palestine and the imports to this country from Palestine?

The declared value of merchandise exported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered as consigned to Palestine during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1930, amounted to £1,038,000, including exports of imported merchandise valued at £26,000. During the same period the declared value of merchandise imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland and registered as consigned from Palestine amounted to £1,282,000.

In view of the development of the country, will the hon. Member make representations and see that when any orders are given they are sometimes given to this country, especially for machinery for the power station, instead of orders being given, as is nearly always the case, to Germany?

I should be glad to do anything on those lines. Possibly the hon. and gallant Member is aware that our exports went up £300,000 compared with the previous 12 months, on the figures that I have already given.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his efforts to increase Anglo-Danish trade have met with any success; and what steps he has already taken about this trade and with whom?

With regard to the first part of the question, I fear it is too early to return a definite answer in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is that my Department has been in communication with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, Federation of British Industries, and the National Union of Manufactures. His Majesty's Minister at Copenhagen has also been in communication with various Danish bodies.

Is not this a matter in which the Minister might take a vigorous initiative and get for us some considerable amount of trade as a result of his own efforts?

I have already done something, but upon the information that I have before me at the present time I do not consider that I can do more at the present moment.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will ascertain and state the reasons why British locomotive makers recently quoted to the Indian stores department prices 20 per cent. higher than those quoted by Hungarian and Berlin makers, with the result that Indian orders for 132 boilers and 66 cylinders were secured by Hungarian and Berlin firms?

My attention has been directed to the case referred to. The detailed information before me is confidential, and I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by pursuing the investigation further.

Is not the Minister aware that time after time we are losing these orders and has not the occasion arisen when an analysis of the causes of our losing these orders might be made, so that we might consider how we could get over the price difficulty which seems to stand in the way of our getting the orders?

My answer only refers to this one question. In regard to the general problem, I am in negotiation with the trade concerned not only in this country but in other countries.

Is the hon. Member trying to get an analysis of the causes, so that we may discover where the difficulty and weakness lie?

I am trying to find out the difficulty as far as I possibly can.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to provide new markets abroad for British herrings?

The question of finding new markets abroad for British herrings is one of the subjects which is being considered by the Economic Advisory Council's Committee on the Fishery Industry, which is taking evidence on the subject.