asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make arising out of the report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai, relating to the forcible entry of Japanese marines into the Hongkew general hospital on 24th April last?

The hospital is situated in Hongkew, which is under the control of the Japanese naval landing party. No forcible entry took place, but a Japanese marine having been fatally injured in the accident on 24th April in which Dr. Lillie was unfortunately killed, a Japanese naval detachment proceeded to the hospital and asked to see the survivors at once. While they were there, an altercation appears to have arisen between the officer in charge of the detachment and Assistant-Commissioner A. H. Sansom, a British subject in the employ of the Shanghai Municipal Police, during which Mr. Sansom was struck a blow in the face by the officer in question. His Majesty's Consul-General has addressed a protest to his Japanese colleague against the assault and similar action has, it is understood, been taken by the Shanghai Municipal Council.

Is this a British hospital, and if it is, cannot steps be taken to protect those British individuals who are, for various reasons, forced to enter our hospital?

The reason why we made a protest was in order to stop incidents like this happening in future.

Is it not obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that his protests have no use whatever, and can he not take definite steps to protect British lives in this hospital and other British places?

The hon. Member may rest assured that we shall do all we can to protect British lives.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that all the British Government can do is to make mild protests of this kind?

asked the Prime Minister what claims have been made by His Majesty's Government against the Japanese Government for maltreatment of the crew of the steamship '' Sagres ''; and what reply has been received?

The full information necessary for the formulation of detailed claims is not yet available. As the Prime Minister stated, however, in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) on 24th May, His Majesty's Government reserve all their rights in respect of compensation.

Can the Minister say whether this ship has now been released?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British passengers to Hankow are, or were required, to have Japanese landing passes; whether this was done with the consent of the British authorities in China; and whether he will give instructions to His Majesty's diplomatic and naval representatives in China that they must at all times insist on the right of British subjects to unrestricted entry into Hankow?

Japanese military passes are at present required by all passengers proceeding to Hankow and other up-river ports, and the British authorities have acquiesced in the issue of these passes in order to enable British subjects to proceed up the River Yangtze. His Majesty's Government do not, however, in principle recognise the right of the Japanese to restrict or control the movements of British subjects in China and His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo has been instructed to enter a formal reservation on this point with the Japanese Government.

Why did the Government acquiesce in the granting of these passes?

The situation on the Yangtze has not been normal, and we thought it better to acquiesce in order to obtain these facilities while making reservations on the general ground.

Are the passes required for the movement of British warships?

The right hon. Gentleman says that the British Government do not acquiesce in the principle, but are they not continually acquiescing in the practice?

asked the Prime Minister what is the reason for the continued absence from Danzig of the League Commissioner; and what duties Dr. Burckhardt is now performing?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 25th May. The High Commissioner returned to Danzig on 28th May.

Is it intended that the residence of the High Commissioner is to be temporary or more permanent than it has been within recent months?

I think that in the immediate present the Commissioner intends to return to Geneva.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that Dr, Burckhardt has not gone there on another attempt at mediation?

Any attempt at mediation would be beyond the competence of the High Commissioner.

How is this gentleman paid for his services, who pays his salary and how is he able to come and go as he will, apparently without responsibility?

I repudiate the suggestion that the High Commissioner is without responsibility and does not attend to his duties. He has the complete confidence of my Noble Friend.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state in what way, in the future, private British interests and those of His Majesty's Government will be represented in Prague?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 5th June to which I have at present nothing to add.

Does "representation" mean recognition of German sovereignty over Czecho-Slovakia?

I said that we had got into touch with other Governments, and I cannot go any further at present.

Has any answer been received from the other Governments?

Not yet.

ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Vatican, relative to a conference for the settlement of outstanding international difficulties and disputes?

The position remains as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton West (Mr. Sorensen) on 15th May.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in any general European settlement, an essential part will be the restoration of liberty and independence to Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia?

The situation postulated by the hon. Member is entirely hypothetical, and I am obviously not in a position to give any assurance in regard to it.

Is it not of the highest importance that it should be made clear at once that no general European settlement could be contemplated which did not make arrangements for the restoration of liberty to these countries that have been recently seized contrary to all the pledges given to the Prime Minister?

I cannot go beyond the answer I have just given.

Is it the intention to hold the matter open, and possibly to recognise the seizure of these countries?

asked the Prime Minister what is the delay in assessing the cost of the damage to His Majesty's ship "Hunter" and presenting a claim to the Spanish Government in view of the fact that repairs to this ship were completed over six months ago?

The cost of the damage to His Majesty's ship "Hunter" has now been assessed and a claim will be presented to the Spanish Government for the sum in question, in accordance with the usual procedure.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether His Majesty's Government have made representations to Signor Mussolini concerning the breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement involved in the leaving of Italian armaments in Spain after the termination of the war;

(2) how many German and Italian troops and military technicians still remain in Spain;

(3)how many Italian aircraft, tanks, and guns have been left in Spain; and whether these arms are now manned by Spanish personnel?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the number of Italian troops still in Spain; how many Italian aeroplanes have been left in that country; and whether these aeroplanes are manned by Italian pilots?

asked the Prime Minister whether there are any Italian aeroplanes and pilots in either Majorca or Iviza?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the amount of war material, formerly belonging to the Italian and German forces in Spain, which has been sold to General Franco; and in what form has payment for such war material been made?

His Majesty's Government have given serious consideration to the issues raised in these questions. I would first remind the House that the Non-intervention Agreement lapsed on 20th April, and that, therefore, there is no provision in any international instrument or undertaking to prevent any Government from now supplying war material to the Spanish Government.

As the House was informed on Monday some 22,000 Italian and 6,000 German troops have now left Spain. These figures represent the great majority of the foreign troops recently serving there. The Italian air forces at Majorca are similarly being reduced; a number of pilots have already left, and the remainder are expected to leave shortly. All Germans connected with the air base in that island have left except two.

Quantities of war material have also been evacuated from Spain, including much aircraft material from Majorca. But a considerable amount of material, of which I cannot give exact figures, has been disposed of to the Spanish Government, including aircraft of Italian origin at Majorca. Arrangements are being made for these to be taken over by Spanish personnel. Full information is not available as to the form in which payment for material transferred is to be made.

The House will recall that the main object of the exchange of Notes constituting Annex XI of the Anglo-Italian Agreement was to ensure against a possibility (as to which fears had been expressed) that at the end of the war the Spanish Government might be induced to afford bases where quantities of war material might remain under Italian military control. During the course of the negotiations preceding the signature of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, mention was made of the possibility of material being sold or given away after the end of the civil war. But it was not against this eventuality that His Majesty's Government especially desired to guard, and information available shows that the main objective to which I have referred has been achieved with the withdrawal of Italian troops and war material still in Italian hands.

Taking all these circumstances into account, His Majesty's Government do not propose to make representations to the Italian Government unless the situation should be materially altered by any new development.

May we interpret the Prime Minister's answer as meaning that, in the view of the Government, there has been no breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, which provided that all Italian war material should be withdrawn?

Yes, I think we must accept that interpretation, that there has been no breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement.

Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman himself said in this House that there would be a withdrawal both of men and of material, and apparently some arrangement was made prior to the final statement which was made publicly? Is not this really a breach of an undertaking given to this House?

The answer which I gave to a question addressed to me, to which I think the right hon. Gentleman is referring, was made in good faith, and I think that the misunderstanding which perhaps occurred was due to my not appreciating what was perhaps in the mind of the hon. Member who asked me the question. What I had in mind was the consideration which I have described in my original answer this afternoon, namely, that we wished to be certain, in making the Anglo-Italian Agreement, that at the end of the war there was not a quantity of war material left in Spain under Italian control. That has been achieved. But it is true, and it is only fair to the Italian Government to make it clear', that, at the time the negotiations were proceeding, mention was made by the Italian Foreign Minister of the possibility that some material might be either sold or given to the Spanish Government. That did not appear to the Government at the time, and it does not appear now, to be of material importance as compared with other considerations.

May I put it to the Prime Minister that, these considerations having been in the mind of the Government, and having been put by the Italian Government, this House was definitely misled?

It was not deliberately misled, at any rate; but it is quite possible that, I having one set of considerations in my mind, and hon. Members having another, there was some misunderstanding.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many Italian and German troops remain, and how much armament; and is it not the duty of the Italian Government, under the agreement for the exchange of military information, to tell us how much armament and how many men remain?

With regard to men, I have already explained that the numbers are now comparatively small, and that those who remain are in process of leaving. With regard to war material, I have already explained fully what the situation is.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his answer will also be applicable to the German and Italian heavy guns which are planted on the Straits of Gibraltar and which would have the harbour of Gibraltar under their control in the event of war?

It is quite obvious, I think, that the Spanish Government can now purchase, if they like and if they are able, heavy guns from any country which can supply them, and can mount them where they please.

This is not a question of purchase of guns from Germany or from Italy. These are guns which were placed there before the civil war was over, and were placed there in contravention of the agreement which had been entered into by the four Powers who belonged to the Non-intervention Committee. These guns are left there in the emplacements where they were put during the war. I certainly was one of those who understood that the Prime Minister had undertaken to see that all this material was withdrawn. Will he protest against the non-withdrawal of these guns, which menace our position in the Straits of Gibraltar?

I must point out that the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed to me is not the question which was on the Paper and which I have answered. It relates to an entirely different set of circumstances. If he will be good enough to put his question down, I will give him an answer.

The Prime Minister has said that it does not seem to him to be a matter of vital importance to this country that all this material should be left behind in Spain. Is he quite certain that the French Government take the same view?

I have no reason to suppose that they do not.

Having now consented to this sale, or gift, of arms to Spain, will the Prime Minister make inquiries, and inform the House subsequently as to what amount of war material is now being given to Franco's Government, or sold to them?

I have no right to ask the Spanish Government such a question, but I will consider it.

rose—

We can have only one question at a time.

Arising out of the statement that the Spanish Government are free to maintain any heavy artillery around Gibraltar, is it not a fact that the Spanish Government are bound by treaty not to fortify the heights around Gibraltar, and has not every Spanish Government until this one kept that treaty?

That is not the question that was on the Paper. If a question is put to me on the subject, I will give a complete answer.

Has the Prime Minister not said that the Spanish Government have the right to mount guns around Gibraltar, whereas we understood that there was this treaty?

Sir Percy Harris.

On a point of Order. Is it not the custom to give those Members who place questions on the Order Paper the first opportunity of asking supplementaries arising out of those questions?

Further to that point of Order. Is the House to understand that only those on the opposite side of the House are allowed to put supplementaries?

I did not observe that the hon. Member was one of those whose questions were being answered at the same time. Under the circumstances if he desires to put a supplementary which has not already been put, I will allow him to do so.

In view of the fact that the Government have no information as to how or what payment was made for this war material, do they consider that allegiance to the Italian Government is the form of payment that General Franco is making? It is a very important question, and may I ask if that is the opinion of the Government?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any recent information as to the extent to which Ceuta has been fortified; what are the calibre and nationality of the guns; and whether any other part of the adjacent coast has been fortified?

Considerable information is in the possession of His Majesty's Government on the subject of the fortification of Ceuta and certain adjacent parts of the coast, the extent of which it would not be in the public interest to divulge. The calibre and country of origin of the guns are various.

When I put a question on this point just now, I was told that that was not the question on the Paper. I agree. But here is the very point being raised by my hon. Friend. I ask again whether these guns, having been put there during the time the Non intervention Agreement was in force, ought to have been returned to Germany and Italy, in accordance with the arrangement made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Italy?

I quite appreciate the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman—

It is not only my anxiety, but the anxiety of the whole country.

I agree that the anxiety is natural, but I think that the special circumstances which arise there have to be taken into consideration. I have said that the countries of origin of the guns are various.

Is it not a fact that many of these big guns were sent to Ceuta in direct contravention of the Non-intervention Agreement, and, that being so, have we not a special status to protest about their being there?

The Non-intervention Agreement has now lapsed. We are dealing here with an area distinct from the Spanish mainland, and with problems of its own.

Is this distinction which the right hon. Gentleman seems to draw between the Spanish mainland and the Spanish territories to be found in the Anglo-Italian Agreement? Does not the Agreement say that all troops and material are to be withdrawn from all Spanish territories?

There are considerations somewhat more complicated than the right hon. Gentleman makes out. I have not the exact date of the mounting of these guns in this particular place, and I do not draw any distinction over the Non-intervention Agreement between Ceuta and the Spanish mainland.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the way in which General Franco is carrying out the assurance given by him to His Majesty's Government, on 22nd February, to the effect that no special tribunals would be set up to try political opponents, nor would the death penalty be enforced for actions which were not recognised as crimes in legislation in force before July, 1936?

Special tribunals have been set up to try cases referred to them under the Law of Political Responsibilities, but the terms of the assurance given are ambiguous and do not exclude the possibility of such tribunals being set up. My noble Friend awaits a further report from His Majesty's Ambassador as to how the terms of the law are being interpreted. As far as Madrid is concerned, only convicted murderers have been sentenced to death, and only 10 sentences had, up to the end of April, been carried out.

Is it not a fact that in a telegram sent to the Prime Minister on, I think, 22nd February, an assurance was specifically given that no special tribunals would be set up? Further, is the Under-Secretary aware that I have the names of far more than 10 people who have been shot— journalists, school teachers and others— for crimes which do not include murder?

On the subject of special tribunals, our own legal opinion shows us that the assurance given is somewhat ambiguous. That is why my noble Friend called for a further report from our Ambassador to the Spanish Government. We are awaiting the report as to how the terms of the law are being interpreted. When we receive such a report I shall be able to give more details.

If these matters are, as the Under-Secretary states, ambiguous, why do not the Government do something to have the ambiguity cleared up?

If the hon. Member had listened to the answer he would have realised that that is precisely what we are doing. My noble Friend is asking for further information. I would like to add that our information is that the courts are proceeding with moderation.

Are the assurances which were given of any value whatever?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent admissions by official German and Italian speakers as to the extent of their intervention in the Spanish war and as to the early date at which such intervention began, and in view of the many denials of all knowledge of such intervention, he will consider reorganising the sources of information of the British Government?

No, Sir. His Majesty's Government were well aware, and have often stated, that intervention in the Spanish war was, unfortunately, taking place on both sides.

On many occasions, to questions asked by myself and other hon. Members, the Government have given the answer that they had no knowledge of such intervention. In view of that, does the matter not call for some further consideration?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole country is profoundly grateful to the Government for keeping us out of the Spanish War?

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have received any information from the League of Nations with regard to Spain's continuance or otherwise of membership of the League?

The Secretary-General of the League of Nations communicated to the Members of the League on 9th May a telegram from the Spanish Government notifying the withdrawal of Spain from the League in accordance with Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.

Do the Government consider this withdrawal a strengthening of the peace forces of the world, and were the Government aware of this withdrawal when they sent our Ambassador to the victory parade in Madrid.

I regard it as my duty to answer the question on the Paper, and I have given the hon. Member and the House a full answer. I cannot undertake to widen the nature of the answer.

asked the Prime Minister what representations have been made recently to General Franco with regard to His Majesty's Government's claims for compensation for the loss of British lives and British ships during the Spanish civil war?

These claims are being filed and examined by the Foreign Office, and those found valid will be presented to the Spanish Government as soon as possible in accordance with the normal procedure.

I would have thought that the Prime Minister would have replied to this question, which is of major importance to the British people.

Does the hon. Member wish to ask a supplementary question?

Will the Government place a time limit on the settlement of these compensation claims, in view of the fact that the Government were entirely responsible for the murder of these British seamen?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state the result of the examination of the most recent Russian note respecting a Russo-Franco-British alliance?

For reasons which the House will appreciate, it has not been possible to give day-to-day information as to the progress of the negotiations for an agreement between Great Britain, France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A stage has, however, now been reached which enables me to supplement the statement which I made on 24th May.

It appears from the last exchange of views with the Soviet Government that there is general agreement as to the main objects to be attained. His Majesty's Government have, I think, been able to satisfy the Soviet Government that they are, in fact, prepared to conclude an agreement on the basis of full reciprocity. They have also made it clear that they are ready, immediately and without any reserve, to join with the French Government in giving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics full military support in the event of any act of aggression against her involving her in hostilities with a European Power. It is not intended that the military support which the three Powers would agree to extend to one another should be confined to a case of actual aggression upon their own territory. It is possible to imagine various cases in which any one of the three Governments might feel that its security was indirectly menaced by the action of another European Power. These cases have been reviewed in detail, and I hope that it may be possible now to suggest a formula acceptable to the three Governments which, while having regard to the rights and interests of other States, will assure co-operation between those Powers in resistance to aggression.

There remain one or two difficulties to be resolved, in particular the position of certain States, which do not want to receive a guarantee on the ground that it would compromise the strict neutrality which they desire to preserve. It is manifestly impossible to impose a guarantee on States which do not desire it, but I hope that some means may be found by which this difficulty, and any others which may arise in the adjustment of the general points on which there is now no difference between the three Governments, shall not stand in the way of giving the greatest effect to the principle of mutual support against aggression.

In order to accelerate the negotiations, it has been decided to send a representative of the Foreign Office to Moscow to convey to His Majesty's Ambassador there full information as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government on all outstanding points. I hope that by this method it will be possible more rapidly to complete the discussion that is still necessary to harmonise the views of the three Governments and so to reach final agreement.

Might I be allowed to thank the Prime Minister for that full statement and also to ask him whether it is not true to say that the final success of these negotiations will make defeat completely impossible and war itself unlikely?

Will the Prime Minister explain who is likely to go to Moscow and whether that visit will hinder the rapid conclusion of agreement on the principles of the treaty; whether the principles of the treaty cannot be settled by the Governments and only subsidiary matters left to be settled in Moscow?

I cannot say at the present time who will be the representative of the Foreign Office, because that is still under consideration.

Could not it be a Minister?

The object of sending a representative of the Foreign Office to Moscow is to facilitate and accelerate the negotiations, and not to delay them. I have every hope that that may be the result.

Is it not possible that a visit to Moscow might be interpreted as a delaying operation against the full completion of the treaty? While the principle might be agreed to now, could not the details be settled afterwards?

We are not in a position actually to conclude a treaty now, because of the points I have mentioned which are still to be resolved. It is in the hope of resolving them rapidly that this visit is to take place.

Can the Prime Minister say when the mission will go to Moscow?

At once.

Will the proposed agreement include an arangement for immediate staff conversations?

I think we had better wait until we reach an agreement.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his hopeful statement will be received as evidence of the Government's determination to reach this agreement as quickly as possible?

Will the representative be a member of the Government, or a civil servant?

A civil servant.

asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the Anglo-Franco-Russian negotiations, whether His Majesty's Government have received any communication from the Governments of the Baltic indicating their wish to be guaranteed, or, on the contrary, not to be guaranteed?

His Majesty's Government have received several communications from the Finnish, Estonian and Latvian Governments indicating that, in view of their intention to maintain strict neutrality, they did not wish to receive a guarantee as a result of the present negotiations between Great Britain, France and Russia.

asked the Prime Minister what steps are contemplated to further co-operation for production, intelligence, and operational plans with the air administration of the Soviet Union?

asked the Prime Minister what staff military conversations have taken place or are contemplated, with either Poland, Rumania, Greece, Turkey or Russia?

The normal method of maintaining staff contacts with foreign countries through the channel of Service attaches has been supplemented in certain instances in recent months. It is contemplated that this procedure will be followed in other cases, but it would not be in the public interest to give any detailed particulars.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that the method of co-operation by means of Service attaches with their limited ability to co-operate with these foreign consuls is likely to prove as effective as the German and Italian method of reciprocal co-operation by hundreds of officers of all arms of the Forces? Would it not at least be common prudence to begin to initiate measures for co-operation for production with the Soviet Union?

I do not think that I can add anything to the answer that I have already given.

Does the answer mean that what we understand to be the demand of Russia for combined staff talks has been rejected by the Government?

No, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has no right to make any such suggestion.

We had better get on with the other questions. There are other hon. Members who have questions on the Paper.

On a point of Order. With very great respect to you, Sir, I wish to submit that it has been the invariable practice for Members who have put a question on the Paper to be allowed to put two supplementary questions?

No. These matters are entirely in the discretion of the Chair and the hon. Member is scarcely behaving in a way to get extra indulgence from the Chair.

I am not asking for it, and I never expect it.

If the hon. Member does not accept my instruction and direction, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

On a point of Order. While I have no intention of claiming any indulgence from the Chair, I certainly have every intention of insisting upon such rights as I do possess, and one of those rights is to put and to complete a point of Order to the Chair. And I now desire to put a point of Order. I desire to ask you, Sir, whether you rule that Members who have questions upon the Paper are not entitled to put supplementary questions not by way of any indulgence from the Chair, but as a right established by long practice?

Yes, I have ruled that the matter is entirely in the discretion of the Chair.

rose—

I rule that that matter is in the discretion of the Chair. In this case, owing to the importance of some of the earlier questions, the later questions on the Order Paper have been very much delayed. It is my intention to try my best to give opportunities for other hon. Members to put their questions. I consider that I have done all that is necessary.

:I beg to give notice that I shall put upon the Order Paper a Motion drawing attention to the Ruling that you have just given as to the right of Members to put supplementary questions.

The hon. Member need not give notice of that; he is entitled to put such a motion on the Order Paper at any time.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what reports he has received from the inspector of civil flying clubs on the standard of flying in Civil Air Guard units; and whether they have been satisfactory?

The Inspector of Civil Flying Clubs took up his duties on 1st May and is now engaged on visiting light aeroplane clubs Up to date he has rendered reports on seven clubs. The reports are generally satisfactory and indicate that the training is being given efficiently.

asked the Secretary of State for Air the numbers of persons, male and female, who have made application to join the Civil Air Guard, and the average contribution per person made from public funds to provide the facilities for training of these applicants?

8,636 men and 1,052 women have been enrolled in the Civil Air Guard. The average amount expended in subsidy to date on this membership is £ 13 14s. per person.

Can we be informed whether any expenses are allowed to the Civil Air Guard other than their travelling expenses and uniforms?

No, Sir. The limit of liabilty on public funds is contained in the agreement with the light aeroplane clubs, which provides for grants in respect of members trained to A licence standard varying with the type of aircraft and for other flying, thus providing flying facilties for members of the Air Guard at very low hourly rates.

Does that include uniforms?

No, it does not.