asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Russian Ambassador has arrived?

Mr. A. HENDERSON:

No, Sir, but I understand that the Soviet Ambassador will reach London on the 10th or 11th of December.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Ambassador will be leaving?

Mr. HENDERSON:

That will depend on when the gale subsides.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the date upon which he expects the Soviet Ambassador; and where he will take up his headquarters in London?

Mr. A. HENDERSON:

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I have to-day returned to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). It is not yet known where the Soviet Ambassador will take up his residence.

When the Soviet Ambassador does arrive, if there is a revival of trouble and propaganda will the right hon. Gentleman invite him to return?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Article 9 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, signed by himself and M. Dovgalevski, provides that the decision concerning the re-establishment of diplomatic relations will be brought for approval before Parliament before each of the two Governments take the usual steps for the appointment of their respective Ambassadors, he will suspend further steps for the exchange of Ambassadors until this condition is completely fulfilled?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that paragraph 9 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, signed by himself and M. Dovgalevski, provides that the stops to be taken under preceding paragraphs of the Protocol, including the decision concerning the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, will be brought for approval before Parliament early at the beginning of the next Session, it is the intention of the British Government to observe these terms of the Protocol; and, if so, whether he proposes to render void the steps already taken to re-establish diplomatic relations until both Houses of Parliament shall have come to a decision on the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON:

Paragraph 9 of the Protocol of the 3rd October was designed to enable His Majesty's Government to comply with the undertaking given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the 15th of July, to the effect that any conclusion which His Majesty's Government might come to regarding the resumption of relations could not become effective until it had been debated in this House. In compliance with that undertaking, and in accordance with the understanding with the Soviet Government recorded in paragraph 9 of the Protocol, the decision reached by His Majesty's Government was debated in this House on the 5th November. The reply to the last part of both questions is in the negative.

Is it not a fact that in this Protocol the word "Parliament" means both Houses of Parliament?

Mr. HENDERSON:

If taken in the light of the statement that I have just made and the pledge given by the Prime Minister on the date mentioned in my last answer, I think he had in mind that the Debate had to take place in this House. Moreover, in that reply he did undertake to follow as far as possible the procedure that had been followed by the previous Government when diplomatic relations were abandoned, and in that case the Debate only took place in this House.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman asked the approval of this House to the form of Protocol, and the interchange of Ambassadors on the basis of the Protocol, and does not Clause 9 of the Protocol expressly say that that Protocol has to be submitted for approval to Parliament? That being so, what right has the right hon. Gentleman to substitute one House of Parliament for the submission to "Parliament" which has been approved at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman by this House?

Mr. HENDERSON:

I do not claim any right to substitute anything other than was intended by 'the Prime Minister's statement. The Prime Minister undertook that it should be discussed in this House, and we have complied with that part of his undertaking, and if I should have used the words "House of Commons" instead of "Parliament," the responsibility is mine.

The right hon. Gentleman has missed my point. He asked the approval of Parliament to a Protocol which provided that this matter should be submitted to Parliament. Does he intend to proceed with these arrangements without having obtained the approval of Parliament in conformity with the Protocol?

Mr. HENDERSON:

Yes, His 'Majesty's Government do intend, having, they believe, complied with the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave to the House.

Does the Foreign Secretary hold that he Las complied with the terms of his own Protocol?

Mr. HENDERSON:

Yes, I do.

Is it not a fact that this House is the only really representative institution?

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a Session of Parliament is a Recess? When he drafts a State document, ought he not to see that he does not misuse well-known language?

Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of a Debate in the other House?

Is this the result—

HON. MEMBERS:

Order!

May I ask—

HON. MEMBERS:

Order!

Does the hon. and galland Member rise to a point of Order?

Yes. I only wanted to ask whether I could put a question and why I should be howled down?

I am doing my best to enable the hon. and gallant Member to be heard.

On a point of Order.

Mr. de Rothschild.

It has been quite impossible to hear.

Mr. de Rothschild.

On this point of Order.

There is no point of Order. Mr. de Rothschild.