CLAUSE 5.—(Sittings Outside the United Kingdom.) (Hansard, 27 July 1916)

§ Mr. WATT
I beg to move, after the word "Commissioners," to insert the 1961 words "or any of their number to whom such authority may be delegated."
The probability is that the Government will accept this Amendment, and it is quite a different question to that of the quorum. It deals entirely with sittings outside the United Kingdom and will enable the Commission to send one or two of their number abroad to get information, while the others are continuing their investigations.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
I do not think that the whole powers of the Commission ought to be exercised by less than three members. This Amendment raises the question of whether the Commission ought to have power to sit in duplicate, one section in Mesopotamia and the other in London, if they so desire. I promise the hon. Member that I will consider his point and I will consult with the Solicitor-General before the Report stage.

§ Mr. WATT
I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Sir J. D. REES
I beg to move, after the word "sittings," to insert the words "in Mesopotamia and elsewhere."
The Clause will then run, "The Commissioners may hold sittings in Mesopotamia and elsewhere outside the United Kingdom." I am aware that it is contended that the words of the Clause cover the point because Mesopotamia is outside the United Kingdom. The Clause provides the procedure if the Commission sits in India, but I think if anybody outside the House of Commons unaccustomed to the language of draftsmen read this Clause he would say that there was provision made in this Dardanelles and Mesopotamia Bill for sittings only in India. Nevertheless, it is the case that there is a special Clause contemplating sittings in India and not contemplating sittings in Mesopotamia. Now, as Mesopotamia is the particular place to which the inquiry refers, it seems to me that it should be specifically mentioned here, so as to make it clear to all and sundry who are not accustomed to legal language or the artifices of the draftsmen that sittings are contemplated in Mesopotamia as well as in India. My Amendment does no harm to the structure of the Clause. The Prime Minister, when speaking yesterday, told me that the sittings in Mesopotamia were not excluded by this Clause. I am per- 1962 fectly well aware of that, but I submit that it is desirable that in this Bill the sittings in Mesopotamia should be contemplated and specifically mentioned. I know there are Amendments on the Paper which are, in substance, like my own. I thought, at first, that the words "Persian Gulf" should also be inserted, but the limits of that once blessed country, "Mesopotamia," have never been laid down. Basra, which is commonly supposed to be in the Persian Gulf, is regarded as being in Mesopotamia, and therefore it is not necessary to insert more places than Mesopotamia, and my Amendment will cover that point. I may be told that it is not necessary to insert my Amendment, but I hope the Government will accept it, because my words are not only harmless, but I think, from a public point of view, they would be beneficial.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Surplus words in an Act of Parliament are mischievous. This Amendment is not required in order to enable the Commission to sit in Mesopotamia if they wish to do so. Why pick out Mesopotamia in particular? Why not Salonika?

§ Sir J. D. REES
Because the Bill concerns the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Exactly. May it not be necessary to carry out inquiries in Egypt with regard to the operations in Mesopotamia? May it not be necessary to carry out inquiries in some of the islands with regard to the operations at the Dardanelles? My hon. Friend proposes to name one particular country to which this Commission should go. We have drawn the Bill so as to enable them to go wherever they may find it necessary for the purposes of their inquiry.

§ Mr. R. McNEILL
My hon. Friend wants to turn this Act of Parliament into an advertisement. He wants people outside to understand that it is possible for the Commission to hold meetings in Mesopotamia. He does not contend that there is any difficulty in holding such meetings. Therefore, the whole object of the Amendment is to advertise to people outside the purposes of the Act and the powers in the Act.

§ Sir J. JARDINE
I have an Amendment of much the same sort, but I have put it down for rather different reasons. The other day, in reply to a question of mine, I understood the Prime Minister's 1963 objection to having this word "Mesopotamia" put in the Bill was that we had no civil jurisdiction there, and that Mesopotamia in that way differed from India. I may have been wrong in my understanding of what he meant to say, but that was certainly what I understood. So far as I know, foreign jurisdiction of the Crown does exist now in Basra and other parts of Mesopotamia to which this Commission would probably go. I put a question on 9th February of last year asking the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any civil officers under the Government of India had been sent to Basra, and if any arrangements had been made for administering civil and criminal justice in that town and the adjacent territories now in British occupation. I got this answer: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Provisional arrangements are being made for the administration of civil and criminal justice by non-military Courts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1915, col. 396, Vol. LXIX.] That seems to show that above a year ago jurisdiction of a non-military sort was being set up there and was being administered by Indian civil servants. The Foreign Jurisdiction Acts all recognise that may be created by conquest as well as by concession, custom, and other means. I think, therefore, that the objection taken to my proposal was based on a mistaken fact, and that there was no power for the Commissioners to sit in Mesopotamia. I would like to see the word " Mesopotamia " included in the Bill, and for that reason I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, though I would rather press my own Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member cannot do that now.

Mr. HAZLETON
May I ask if the new Clause further on the Paper ["Australian citizens"] in the name of the hon. Member for West Clair (Mr. Lynch) will be in order?

§ Sir J. D. REES
Is the hon. Member in order in intervening on my Amendment 1

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must hear what the point is.

Mr. HAZLETON
If not, I desire on this Amendment to raise a few questions which I will otherwise wait to develop until the new Clause is reached.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I see no reason so far to rule out the new Clause of the hon. Member for West Clare.

Mr. HAZLETON
Then I will wait until that Clause is reached.

§ Colonel YATE
I beg to move, after the word "India" ["If any such sittings are held in Lidia"], to insert the words "Mesopotamia, Persia, the Persian Gulf, or Arabia." I desire to put these words in the Bill, because the Commission, or a part of it, may go outside Mesopotamia into Persia, Arabia, or the Persian Gulf. I should also like to have an assurance that they will be at perfect liberty to carry on their inquiry afloat or ashore, whichever is most convenient.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
They have a general power to sit outside the United Kingdom, and the effect of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment would only be of a limiting character.