THE ADEN HINTERLAND (Hansard, 26 July 1911)

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY)

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot acid anything in substance to what has already been said on this subject by my noble friend behind me. I quite understand the interest that Lord Lamington takes in this matter. He and I were concerned at the same time in Indian administration. But I do rather wonder that he should think it necessary to raise the question in the form he does, because he is really well aware—nobody in England is better aware than he is—of the line of policy which, wisely or unwisely, His Majesty's Government determined to adopt at the time when Lord Lamington was Governor of Bombay. That policy has up to this point worked most successfully. I am not sure that we were fortunate enough to have the approval of the noble Lord, but he will be glad to know that in our view and in the view of the Government of India to-day—though perhaps less so at the time—and in the opinion of my noble friend Lord Crewe, that policy has thoroughly justified itself. It is part of that policy, as the noble Lord well knows, that we should avoid entangling ourselves in any responsibility in that wild region the Hinterland of Aden. That was the old policy. Then, for good reasons or bad, the Government of which Lord Curzon was at the head in India took another view. Then we reverted to the older view; and it was part of that policy that we should not entangle ourselves in any responsibility by anything like railway construction, nor should we encourage other people to entangle themselves, and us consequentially, in any such responsibilities. I do not believe that I can add anything to the general line of argument with which my 700 noble friend is thoroughly familiar. It is true that the Turkish authorities are encouraging surveys in their own territories—that is to say, in the territory north of the line which was drawn and accepted at the time when my noble friend was Governor of Bombay; but that is no reason at all for our encouraging British subjects or any others in making lines to meet the Turkish line if it is ever constructed. So long as the Turkish line does not violate the line of demarcation settled at the time I am referring to, it cannot be to our interests to permit those for whom we should be ultimately responsible to embark in railway construction. The noble Lord asks for reasons. Those are the reasons. They are plain, and they lie on the surface of the policy which has been adopted, and we see no reason whatever to go back upon them.

§ LORD LAMINGTON

I wish to thank the noble Viscount for his courteous reply. Though I was aware that those circumstances then dictated his policy, still I maintain that the Government cannot for ever take up a dog-in-the-manger attitude and say, "We are not going to do anything ourselves and we are not going to let anybody else do anything." You cannot suppose that you are for ever to prevent a district over which you have assumed some responsibility being opened up and developed in a way in keeping with ordinary civilisation. I believe there have been railway projects put before the Government of India or the Government of Bombay for the purpose of opening up the Aden Hinterland. The responsibility to be assumed by His Majesty's Government would not be pecuniary. It would only be, I presume, in the keeping of good order. I think the noble Viscount exaggerates the character of any disorder that is likely to take place in the Aden Hinterland. The people there are not warlike. Their actual warfare consists of a few people out of each village getting behind rocks and trees and taking pot-shots at their opponents. Possibly a few people are killed, but after a week or two of these operations the war is over. I submit that we cannot for ever assume this non possumus attitude of not allowing the country to be developed by other people. The Government, as I say, would incur no responsibility except that of keeping order, which is a risk of the most remote kind.