asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Sind Legislative Assembly expressing strong opposition to the scheme of federal government and urging the British Government not to impose the scheme on the Province; and whether he has any statement to make respecting this further repudiation of the scheme of federation?

My Noble Friend has not yet been made aware of a resolution in this sense by the Sind Legislative Assembly, and I have no statement to make.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any report to make upon the representations recently made by Sir Robert Hodgson to the Burgos government with regard to the bombing of British ships?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement concerning the report which Sir R. Hodgson has made to His Majesty's Government on the bombing of British ships?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House in regard to assurances received by His Majesty's Government respecting the cessation of the bombing of British ships trading in Spanish waters?

asked the Prime Minister what reply has been brought by Sir Robert Hodgson from the Burgos authorities to the protest against the deliberate outrages upon British shipping by insurgent aircraft?

Sir Robert Hodgson arrived in London on Thursday afternoon and has since then been engaged in consultation with my Noble Friend and his advisers. These consultations are still in progress and the House will not expect me to do more at the moment than give a summary of the reply which Sir Robert Hodgson has brought with him from the Burgos authorities.

The reply maintains that ports are legitimate military objectives, but strongly disclaims any intention to single out British ships as objectives for attack. The reply goes on to make certain proposals for according immunity from attack to a port to be agreed upon, and the suggestion is made that this port might be Almeria. The Burgos authorities ask for suitable guarantees concerning the nature of the merchandise to be admitted through that port. They conclude by emphasising their readiness to put forward proposals which may be helpful in establishing new laws of war for the future. I would only add that the shipping interests concerned have been informed of the proposals contained in this note, and His Majesty's Government will naturally take their views into account.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in considering this matter, the serious anxiety felt by citizens of this country regarding the continual bombing of British ships?

I think that as the Prime Minister is not able to be here to-day it would be better if I did not deal with supplementary questions. If there are questions arising from the statement which I have made they had better be put down.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that these protests were sent on account of the machine-gunning of seamen and the bombing at close quarters of British ships, and do I understand that Sir Robert Hodgson has replied that they were not deliberate? As the right hon. Gentleman does not reply, may I ask what the position is, because questions were put on the Paper addressed to the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister, we understand, cannot be here, and can we have some understanding as to when the matter can be inquired into?

May I press my right hon. Friend to say whether His Majesty's Government accept the denial of the Burgos authorities about the deliberate character of these attacks?

I do not think that I can in the circumstances do more than give the House the information I have given. That does not debar further questions being put on a subsequent occasion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister will be able to make a fuller statement tomorrow if I put down a private notice question?

The Prime Minister will, I am sure, be ready to answer questions on this subject as soon as he is in a position to do so.

If that port is selected, is there any guarantee that it will not be bombarded by the Germans?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information regarding the attack on the steamship "Stanwold" by an armed insurgent trawler in the Straits of Gibraltar; and whether he will take steps to see that British ships shall pass through the Straits without molestation?

My Noble Friend has seen an account in the Press of the incident in question, and a full report is now being obtained. As regards the second part of the question, measures are already in force to provide for the safe passage of British merchants ships through the Straits of Gibraltar.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the bombing of British ships in Spanish ports is carried on by Italian aircraft, supplied by the Italian Government to General Franco and based on Majorca, His Maejsty's Government will represent to the Italian Government the desirability of their immediately withdrawing such aircraft from Spain in the interests of good relations between the two countries?

His Majesty's Government must hold the Burgos authorities responsible for any action taken by aircraft stationed on the Island of Majorca. They are not, therefore, prepared to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Will it now be possible for the Italian Government to withdraw these aeroplanes if they so desire?

I have said on previous occasions that we must hold the Burgos authorities responsible for the operations of these aircraft.

Do I take it that the Government have made no representations in the last week through the British Ambassador at Rome to Count Ciano with regard to this bombing of ships?

There is a further question on the Order Paper on that subject.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these aircraft belong to the Royal Italian Air Force, and, therefore, must belong to the Italian Government; and will he make representations to the Italian Government?

We must hold the Burgos authorities responsible for the operations of the aircraft.

If the Government must hold the Burgos authorities responsible, why do they receive information on matters of high policy from Count Ciano and not from the Burgos government?

We have communications with both governments?

Why do the Government hold the Burgos authorities responsible when we know from the Italian Government-controlled Press that their orders are coming from Rome?

The hon. Gentleman has his sources of information and we have ours, and according to our sources of information the Burgos authorities must be held responsible for the operations of these aircraft.

asked the Prime Minister what representations have been made by the British Ambassador in Rome to the Italian Government with regard to the sinking of British ships in Spanish Government ports, and what reply has been received?

This and other aspects of the Spanish problem have been discussed between His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome and the Italian Government, but I am not in a position to make any statement.

May I ask why it was that the Prime Minister could not give me that information when I asked him?

I have given the right hon. Gentleman the latest and most up-to-date information on this point.

Why was it that when this same question was put to the Prime Minister he asked for notice of it, whereas within two hours full information was given to the Press by the Foreign Office?

It is a question of the hour and the date. I am answering the question at a later time than it was addressed to the Prime Minister.

Why did these conversations take place at all, in view of the fact that in answer to a previous question the Government have stated that they recognise the Burgos government as being the only authority in Nationalist Spain?

asked the Prime Minister whether representations have been made to the Burgos government with the object of preventing the bombing of open cities in terms as stern as those employed in the recent protest to the republican government of Spain on the same subject; and what were the terms of those representations?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have made representations to the Spanish Government to dissuade them from bombing, by way of reprisal, the Italian air base at Majorca or Italian ships unloading munitions in Spanish insurgent ports?

asked the Prime Minister in what terms he replied to the communication as to the Spanish Government adopting a policy of reprisals in regard to air attacks upon the civilian population and non-military objectives?

His Majesty's Government have made no formal representations to the Spanish Government on the subject of reprisals for air attacks, but they have represented to the Burgos authorities the horror with which they view the loss of civilian lives resulting from the bombardment of towns in Spanish Government territory, and they have in the past appealed to both sides to abstain from the destruction of objectives of a non-military character.

Is it not a fact that there have been several reprisal raids against Majorca, and that a great number of civilian casualties have been suffered?

I have not that information.

Will His Majesty's Government's objection apply to reprisals against military aerodromes in Majorca?

I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to my original reply. I cannot accept the premises on which he bases his supplementary question.

Do I understand that the Government made no representations to the Spanish Government to refrain from bombing Italian aerodromes in Majorca?

The Government have made no formal representations. They have made their view perfectly clear on this subject to both sides.

asked the Prime Minister whether the steamer "Baron Forbes," sent from Glasgow on 25th June by the "Friends of National Spain," containing goods for General Franco, had a non-intervention observer on board; and can he indicate of what the cargo consisted?

This vessel duly took a non-intervention observer on board at Lisbon on 3rd July. I understand that the cargo consists of medical stores.

In view of the fact that certain statements and allegations have been made in reliable quarters that this vessel also had a cargo of iron plates, will the hon. Gentleman make further investigations?

I can do no more than say that the vessel had a non-intervention observer on board, thus safeguarding the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that His Majesty's Government have exerted their influence with the Portuguese Government to prevent the passage to Spain of munitions and combatants over the Portuguese frontier; and whether he is satisfied that the Portuguese Government are, in fact, maintaining an effective control?

During the period when the British observers in Portugal were stationed on the Spanish frontier, they received every assistance from the Portuguese officials in carrying out their duties, and the reports received from the administrator of the observers showed that effective control of the frontier was being maintained by the Portuguese authorities. The observers were withdrawn from the frontier on 25th June, 1937, in consequence of the decision of the French Government to withdraw facilities from the international observers on the Franco-Spanish frontier. Since that date His Majesty's Government have received no evidence to show that effective control is not being maintained, and they have not felt called upon to make any communication on the subject to the Portuguese Government.

May I know why it has been thought necessary to make strong representations to the French Government to keep the frontier closed and to make no corresponding representations to the Portuguese Government?

As I have told the hon. Lady before, I cannot accept her statement as a true picture of the position.

This is really rather important. There is no doubt at all, I understand—and I ask the hon. Gentleman—that representations were made by the British Government to the French Government as to the desirability of closing the French frontier. Have the same representations been made to the Portuguese Government with regard to their frontier?

We must take it, and we have reason to believe that the Portuguese exercise effective control on their land frontier. With regard to our relations with the French Government, no formal representation or request was made by His Majesty's Government.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any definite impartial information that the Portuguese are not allowing munitions to pass their frontier? His Majesty's Government have evidently had some information about the French frontier. What steps have they taken to ascertain that no munitions are passing across the Portuguese frontier? Have they taken any steps to make inquiries?

I have given that information already to the House; it is that we have no evidence that there is not effective control, and that the Portuguese are not carrying out their duties in this respect.

On what is that opinion based? Have the Government made inquiries?

That opinion is based on the information in our possession.

Has not Franco any number of ports without going through Portugal?

Has the hon. Gentleman had reports from Portugal that nothing is passing the frontier?

I have already told the House that I can only give the information at our disposal. I have given the information, which is that there is no evidence to show that effective control is not being maintained.

Why is it necessary always to have affirmative evidence with regard to a frontier which is on the side of the Spanish Government, while a mere negative reply is always enough for Franco's frontier?

The right hon. Gentleman need not try to attribute any partiality to our side. We have adopted the policy of non-intervention, and, in spite of all the difficulties. we have adhered to it.

Why should the hon. Gentleman assume that this is a matter of partiality unless there is another explanation?

Are we to gather from the Under-Secretary's answer that no representations were made to the French, or is he slipping out on the word "Formal"?

Answer.

On a point of Order. May I put it to you, Sir, that on a matter of this importance, when a Minister has given an answer which is obviously intended to be misleading——

The hon. Lady must not impute motives.

May I re-phrase my question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No! and" "Withdraw!"] I have no desire to impute motives. I wish only to ask you whether, an answer having been given which, unfortunately, may be read in two ways, when a Front Bench Member asks for a clarification, so that we might know what the Minister did mean, it is really fair for the Minister to make no answer whatever?

The Minister has given about six or seven answers already.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has consulted authorities upon international law as to the relative position of British subjects engaged in ambulance work in Spain and of those engaged on British ships doing legitimate trade in Spanish territorial waters?

The analogy lies rather in the nature of service rendered by these classes of persons than in their respective positions under international law.

In view of the statement made by the Minister the other night, are we to understand that British ambulance men going to work in Spain can be murdered with impunity by any of the brigands on the other side?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several international experts have expressed strong disagreement with the statement of the Prime Minister that there is no difference between the two cases?

Then perhaps they will study the reply which I have given to-day.

asked the Prime Minister what reply has been returned to the note of the Spanish Government asking that an international commission should visit forthwith Spanish towns which have been subjected to aerial raids?

The Spanish Government have been informed that His Majesty's Government are making every endeavour to arrange for the formation of a commission to proceed to France at an early date. Consultations are still being carried on with a number of Governments, and I regret that I am not, therefore, in a position to make any further statement at this stage.

Will such a commission also visit other Spanish towns where there are allegations of massacres of civilians, and will the hon. Gentleman accept it from me——

The question asks only whether there has been a reply.

May I not ask whether the commission might not be extended?

Not on this question.

May we hope for the dispatch of this commission at an early date?

That depends upon the answers of several Governments, but I sincerely hope so.

Is the matter being pressed?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have decided what instructions will be given to the British representatives at the September meeting of the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference; and whether efforts will be made to secure by international agreement a measure of air disarmament and the limitation of the air bombing of civilian populations?

In reply to the first part of the question, no decision has yet been taken by His Majesty's Government. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 28th June.

asked the Prime Minister what reply has been made by the Japanese authorities in Tokyo to the representations made to them relative to the difficulties experienced by British ships which are unable to obtain wharfage in the commercial harbour at Tsingtao; and will he give particulars of the local settlement that has been arrived at between the British naval and consular authorities with their Japanese colleagues on this question?

The representations made to the Japanese authorities in Tokyo were informal, and did not specifically call for any reply. As regards the second part of the question, the Japanese Consul-General at Tsingtao has informed His Majesty's Consul-General that the Imperial Japanese Navy are prepared to accord facilities to British vessels on compliance with instructions given by the Japanese Naval Harbour Administration. There are, however, consequential difficulties involved by such compliance on the part of British shipping, as I have already stated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) on 27th June.

Are shipowners still compelled to use sampans and junks for the transport of merchandise and passengers to this port?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the strong opposition on the part of the European community to the proposal that there should be any evacuation of any part of the foreign areas in Hankow; and whether every effort will be made to retain His Majesty's vessels at Kiukiang to support and protect those who are there endeavouring to protect and maintain British interests?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an undertaking that the British business communities at Hankow and Kiukiang will not be evacuated except at their own request, and that His Majesty's gunboats will remain at these ports for the due protection of British interests and property?

I am aware that there is a division of opinion amongst the British residents at Hankow regarding measures to be taken in the event of a Japenese occupation. Both at that city and at Kiukiang, the ultimate responsibility for making the best arrangements for the protection of British lives and property must rest with the authorities on the spot, in whose judgment my Noble Friend has every confidence. As regards the movements of His Majesty's ships, I would refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton) on 29th June last, to which I have nothing to add.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the immense importance of British interests in this part of China, and of the necessity of doing everything possible to maintain those interests, especially seeing that if the evacuation of British residents took place it would probably have a very serious effect on our trade interests in the future—interests which, I may say, are probably much greater than those which exist in Spain?

Yes, Sir, I am fully aware of the importance of those interests, and that is why the Government pay particular attention to this aspect of the question.

Are not these interests there for the purpose of making profits.— [Interruption.]

Is the Minister not aware that British interests in China represent a vast amount of employment?

On a point of Order. I was only half through with my question. Am I not permitted to finish it? I think it is a very good question.

If it had been a little shorter it would have been better.

As the question of profit arises in both cases, cannot the hon. Gentleman give the same protection to British interests in Spain as he is prepared to give to British interests in China?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the reply by the Japanese delegate at the committee on traffic in opium in its meetings at Geneva during the present month to the effect that 1,500 chests of Iranian opium, transported by a Japanese ship from the Persian Gulf to China, were imported by the Manchukuo Government for the purpose of consumption by the registered addicts of that country; and whether he will endeavour to ascertain whether the numbers of such registered addicts are increasing under Japanese guidance?

As regards the first part of the question, this information was communicated to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo by the Japanese Government, to whom an inquiry had been addressed as to the destination of the ship when it left Bushire. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a position to make any statement, nor is it likely to be possible to obtain the information desired.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to statements by the Japanese delegate at the committee on traffic in opium that of 2,900 chests ordered by Japanese interests in the first three months of 1938, 300 chests were imported by a Japanese firm through Shanghai, these 300 chests being permitted by the North China provisional government in conformity with existing opium conventions; and whether, in view of the fact that existing conventions appear to allow an increasing import of dangerous drugs into parts of China under Japanese control, the British Government will press for the most rigid interpretation of these conventions, with a view to preventing a systematic demoralisation of a very large number of people?

Yes, Sir; my attention was drawn to the statement made by the Japanese delegate at Geneva. As, however, he declared that the Japanese firm acted solely as shipping agents, no technical breach of the 1925 Convention has been committed by the Japanese Government. As also, the Convention of 1931, which limits the amount of manufactured drugs which may be imported by each country during the year, does not apply to raw opium, the tightening up of existing regulations would not achieve the object which the hon. Member has in mind.

Does the Under-Secretary not agree that these Conventions appear to allow increasing imports of these dangerous drugs into China, and cannot His Majesty's Government take action in the matter?

I fully realise the position, and I regret that the Conventions do not cover the sort of incident which the hon. Member brought to our notice.

Will the report of the proceedings at the League on this subject be considered, and is there any doubt that the Japanese Government are encouraging the drug traffic in China with a view to demoralising the Chinese?

The whole matter is under close consideration.

Will His Majesty's Government work in close co-operation with the United States Government to try to check this horrible traffic?

Any steps we can take to check this traffic in co-operation with any Government will be necessary and important.

Is it not true that while we are considering these questions the Japanese are making the Chinese all drunk?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, since the Japanese military authorities took over the telegraph service in North China, British merchants' business cables in Tientsin are subject to serious delay in delivery and are often mutilated in respect of essential details, such as quantities and figures; and whether, failing satisfaction from the Japanese, he will endeavour to arrange for the transmission of these messages by wireless to and from Hong Kong?

I have seen no recent official information on this subject, but my Noble Friend is now calling for a report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin.

asked the Prime Miinster whether he will consider making representations to all foreign Governments, whether members of the League of Nations or not, as to the desirability of enlisting the service of broadcasting in the cause of peace; and whether, in any event, His Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to initiate broadcasting of that character from this country?

The International Convention on the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace was signed at Geneva on 23rd September, 1936, by representatives of 28 Governments, of whom eight subsequently proceeded to ratification. Three other countries have acceded. An invitation to attend the conference was extended to non-members as well as members of the League and the Convention was open to accession by all countries. His Majesty's Government, having ratified the Convention, will observe its provisions.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the deprivation of nationality rights of 80 per cent. of the Rumanian Jews and their consequent loss of livelihood; and whether he will make representations for the assistance of this minority in Rumania?

I have no precise information as yet regarding the incidence of the Rumanian Law for the Revision of Civic Rights. The interest of His Majesty's Government in this matter remains as indicated to the House on previous occasions, and particularly in the reply given to the right hon. Member on 14th February by the then Foreign Secretary.

Does the hon. Gentleman deny that this law is de-franchising 80 per cent. of the Jewish population? Has he seen the telegram this morning dealing with the matter, and will he make representations on the lines of the policy laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden)?

My right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary said that His Majesty's Government would continue to maintain their interest, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may take it that we continue to take the same interest.

asked the Prime Minister whether, following the recent agreement between this country, the United States of America, and France, he proposes to initiate discussions with the Japanese Government with a view to averting the necessity for resorting to battleships of 45,000 tons and gun calibres of 16 inches?

In view of the unwillingness of the Japanese Government, both before and during the escalation discussions, to furnish any information or assurances as regards their naval construction intentions, I fear that nothing would be achieved at the present stage by initiating discussions as proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. His Majesty's Government, however, are always ready to discuss this question with the Japanese Government, should the latter show any desire to do so.

In view of the Government's willingness to discuss the matter, will it be brought to the attention of the Japanese Government so that everything possible may be done to avoid the shocking waste of money represented by these increases?

I hope that the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and my reply will be noticed by the Japanese Government.

Will the British Government initiate the conversations?

I said in my original reply that I feared nothing could be achieved at the present stage by initiating discussions, as the right hon. Gentleman proposes.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of fresh applications for disability pensions by ex-service men between 1st January, 1937, and 1st January, 1938, and the number which were established?

During the year 1937, the number of fresh applications in respect of War disablement was 2,934. Of these, 17 per cent., or 492, were established.

Will the Minister consider setting up a committee of inquiry into the whole question?

That question has been answered.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men in receipt of a disability pension on 1st January, 1937, and the number in receipt of the same in January, 1938; the number in receipt of a pension less than 100 per cent. on both dates; the number of limbless men in receipt of a disability pension and the proportion of such receiving less than 100 per cent. pension; and the estimated cost to place all the men disabled through Service and in receipt of a pension on 100 per cent. allowance, and so remove them from competition for work in the industrial field?

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

asked the Minister of Pensions particulars of any recent alterations which have taken place in the personnel and practice of the Special Grants Committee?

As the hon. and gallant Member may have seen in the Press, I have appointed Mr. Charles Doughty, K.C., to be Chairman of the Special Grants Committee in place of Sir Edward Troup, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., whose health prevented him from accepting reappointment, and I have added to the committee Captain Frank Nicholl, late chairman of the Halifax, Todmorden and District War Pensions Committee. The Committee inform me that, apart from certain changes in procedure to which I referred in my replies to the questions addressed to me on 24th and 31st May, their practice in dealing with the class of case which the hon. and gallant Member no doubt has in mind, has not been affected.

May we take it that Mr. Doughty will occupy the position of chairman of the sub-committee which deals with the deprivation of pensions of widows?

Yes, Sir, that is so.

Will there be any change in the procedure of the committee?

That is an entirely different question.

Is it the intention to take evidence rather than to follow the procedure of the past, when no evidence was taken?

That, also, is a different question.

Will it be permissible to submit to the committee cases which have already been turned down?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Will it be the same kind of evidence that the Minister spoke about at Monmouth the other day?