§ Major ELLIOTI beg to move, in page 17, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
The expression 'the British Empire' means His Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom, territories under His Majesty's protection, territories in respect of which a mandate of the League of Nations is being exercised by the Government of any dominion within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and any territory in respect of which a mandate of the League of Nations is being exercised by the Government of the United Kingdom and to which Section five of this Act has been declared by Order in Council to apply as if it were a territory under His Majesty's protection.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word in introducing the Amendment, because it raises a very serious constitutional question. Certain territories have been placed under the care of the League of Nations, and mandates have been entrusted to various countries. We cannot be too careful in observing the terms of those mandates and recognising their existence. A mandated territory forms no part of the British Empire. You will cause a very great deal of suspicion amongst other nations if you try to suggest for a moment that a mandated territory is part of the British Empire, or is something which is in process of becoming part of the British Empire. The whole idea of the mandate is that a Power is entrusted with the care of a certain territory until the people of that territory shall be able to govern it themselves. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts down an Amendment in 300 which he defines the British Empire as including mandated territories.
§ Major ELLIOTThis is merely a drafting Amendment for the purpose of transferring a definition which appears in the Third Schedule into the body of the Bill. It is not put down to widen the British Empire. It is merely transferring a portion of the Third Schedule into the body of the Bill for drafting purposes.
§ Mr. ATTLEESo much the worse. I thought it might have been an oversight, but we now find that it is deliberately put in. Is there any precedent in any Bill for defining the British Empire as including mandated territory? Has the Foreign Office been consulted on the matter as to what effect it is going to have in our dealings with the League of Nations? I think it ought to be postponed until we can have the Foreign Secretary here and he can tell us in what sort of light this will appear at Geneva. We protested earlier in these proceedings against the suggestion. We did not say you should not give benefits to the mandated territories, but it is clear throughout the Bill that there is an idea that the mandated territories are going to become part of the British Empire. In an earlier Clause you have in effect set up a kind of Navigation Law, by which the British Empire will have a preference as against other countries in the carriage of goods to mandated territories, and now we have this definition of the British Empire. We have already had the case of Iraq, where the mandate has been terminated, and we have the case of Palestine, where at some time or other it will probably be terminated. You may, if you like, say that every advantage given to a part of the British Empire order the Bill shall be given to a mandated territory, but to define the British Empire as including territories which by no possible stretch of the imagination can be called British Possessions, Colonies, or Dominions, but are simply territories entrusted to our care, is a breach of trust. The right hon. Gentleman might as well pay monies with which he was entrusted into his own account and draw on them at his pleasure. You are putting the country into the position of a trustee who is embezzling money.
§ 8.0 p.m
§ Major ELLIOTI do not share the hostility of the hon. Member to man- 301 dated territories. I wish them to have these advantages, the House wishes them to have them, and the League of Nations wishes them to have them. There are certain mandates which are specifically excluded. These are defined in the terms of the Sub-section. It will be seen in the proposals that His Majesty's Government are most scrupulous not to interfere with mandated territories either in the terms or the spirit of the letter of the mandate. All that we seek to do is that when, for instance, a territory like Tanganyika is producing a suitable product, and the territory of Kenya alongside is also—
§ Mr. ATTLEEI think that the right hon, and gallant Gentleman is after the wrong hare. You are saying that the British Empire includes mandated territories. You are deliberately declaring in the Bill that a mandated territory is part of the British Empire. It is not.
§ Major ELLIOTI am not declaring anything of the sort. The hon. Member has not only found a mare's nest, but he has found a mare's nest from which the mare departed 10 years ago. The provision was in the Finance Act of 1919. There was a Labour Government in 1924, and there was a Labour Government in office for two years after that. Did they repeal the Section in the Finance Act, 1919? They did not. Did they bring it to the attention of anybody at the League of Nations? They did not. Did they go to the Permanent Mandates Commission and object to it? They did not. And now, on the spur of the moment, the hon. Member rises at three minutes past Eight o'Clock on the last stages of the Import Duties Bill to object to a provision which he will find in the Finance Act, 1919. The definition which was made then for the purpose of the Finance Act has stood unchallenged for all the years since then by one Labour Government, and then by a second Labour Government, and it has also stood unchallenged by the League of Nations itself and by every single Committee and Commission set up under the League of Nations. I therefore ask the hon. Member if he wishes for any further explanation?
§ Sir R. BANKSCannot we put it right by merely saying that the British Empire 302 offers apologies to everybody for using so revolting a term?
§ Amendment agreed to.