Lords Sitting of 23 June 1921

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (OSSETT AND WAKEFIELD EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CONYNGHAM'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Frederick William Burton Marquis Conyngham not to marry adulterer.
5. It shall not be lawful for the said Frederick William Burton Marquis Conyngham at any time hereafter to contract matrimony with any offending party on account of whose adultery with the said Frederick William Burton Marquis Conyngham his marriage with the said Bessie Alice Marchioness Conyngham is hereby dissolved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that this clause be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question,. Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBI- TION) (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Moved, That the Bill be reported to the House without amendment.—(Lord Buck-master.)
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, there are one or two things I wanted to say, and as Clause 3 was not discussed in Committee, I hope I may be permitted to say them now. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill has said that this is a very mild measure. I think he is right, but, if that is so, whether it becomes a success or not will depend entirely upon the way in which it is administered. That, in turn, will depend upon the Advisory Committee which is being set up. Under Clause 3 there are to be always three representatives of the plumage trade. I think that is rather liberal, and should myself have preferred that these gentlemen should be treated as witnesses and not as judges, because they are deeply interested pecuniarily in the importation of plumage. On the other hand, there are representative bodies which have taken a most active part in the promotion of the Bill and have its objects most closely at heart.
I should like to ask the Government if they are prepared to undertake that one representative of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and one representative of the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals should sit upon that Committee. These bodies, as Lord Lambourne said the other day, are most deeply interested in the object of the Bill, and would, I am perfectly certain, very much like to be represented on this Committee. When the great efforts which have been devoted to getting this Bill through Parliament have exhausted themselves, it may well happen that we shall have a reaction. I did not like to put down an Amendment, because this is to be an agreed Bill, but, if the noble and learned Lord has no objection, I should like to ask whether the Government can give the assurance for which I ask. I think the House will agree that it. is a very reasonable request.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill reported without amendment accordingly.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1912, AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

DENTISTS BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Prohibition. of practice of dentistry by unregistered persons.
(3) Nothing in this section shall operate to prevent—

(a) the practice of dentistry by a registered medical practitioner; or

(b) the extraction of a tooth by a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist or duly registered chemist and druggist, where the case is urgent and no duly qualified medical paw' it inner registered dentist is available and the operation is performed without the application of any general or local ainæsthetie;or

THE PARLIAMENTA.RY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) to leave out "duly qualified" and insert "registered." The object. of the Amendment is to give the same phraseology as in the first subsection.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out ("duly qualified ") and insert ("registered ").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

DRAFT MANDATE FOR EAST AFRICA.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the Draft Mandate for East. Africa (British) in the form in which the Council of the League of Nations will be invited to approve it. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that the terms of my Notice are not very specific, but I have had an opportunity of communicating with the noble Lord, the Duke of Sutherland, who I understand represents the Government upon this matter, and I have been
750
enabled to tell him exactly what. are the points on which I desire further enlightenment. It is hardly necessary, although I should like to do so in a few words, to emphasise the importance of the Mandate principle. It is a new principle as regards Colonial development, introduced into the League of Nations, and, if properly exercised, as I hope it will be, it appears to me to he one of the most beneficent results which have conic from the late war.
If I may quote one passage from Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I think it would be the easiest way of illustrating what I mean when I speak of the importance of the Mandate principle. The Mandates are to be applied to countries "inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.' In other words, there is a recognition that in the relationship between more advanced countries and the less advanced countries the less advanced countries should be treated as in the nature of a cestui que trust, and their interests should be regarded as a primary duty by the Mandatory country, whatever it may be.
Your Lordships will know and I say this in order that it may be understood within what limits I am speaking—that there are three forms of mandates, known as A, B and C. Mandate A has to do with ex-Ottoman territories, and I do not intend to go Lack upon the points which have already been raised with regard to Palestine and Mesopotamia by the noble Lords, Lord Sydenham and Lord Lamington. Form C applies to what is called contiguous territory Mandates. I think Lord Islington's Question may raise matters with regard to these Mandates, and, therefore, I do not intend to deal with them. Form B is the form of:Mandate to which my Question relates, and I can illustrate the importance of that form of Mandate by merely giving two figures. According to calculations which I have seen, these Mandates, which are Mandates in tropical Africa, will apply to an area of 600,000 square miles, and to a population of about 12,000,000. Of course, the population in a district of that kind must., to a great extent, be a matter of estimate, and I saw it stated in the same paper- I am not sure about the accuracy—. that it really means an area of about three times the area of France at the present time. I have not looked into the figure, but at any rate it is a very large One.
Now the Mandatories are settled by the Allied and Associated Powers, practically, I suppose, by the Supreme Conference, but —this is of importance, and if I am wrong I should like to be corrected when the time comes—I think that the final selection of the Mandatories was made as long ago as August, 1919.There was a selection before that time, but a subsequent alteration, and I think that is the final date. But these Mandates have not so far been put in force at all. I believe the case to be that there has been a difference of opinion as to the extent to which troops can be raised and used from the Mandated areas. I think that has really been the matter under discussion, and as I am going to show by and by, that is a matter which appears to me to be absolutely settled under the terms of Article 22. I say that because a statement has been made that probably one cause, at any rate, of the delay in placing the Mandates before the League of Nations, or the Council of the League, whichever is the proper body, has been a dispute upon that point.
The effect of that is that on November 20 of last year, when the Council were in session at Geneva, a telegram was sent from the President of the League to the Prime Ministers of France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan in these terms—I am giving the substance of them—" As, however, so far no Draft Mandates have yet been submitted, and as this has stirred public opinion of the world, the Council takes the liberty of urging the extreme importance of a prompt solution." Afterwards, there was a statement to the effect that the Council cannot indefinitely postpone the obligations incumbent -upon it. That is to say, if these Mandates are to be carried out in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, and with due respect to the principle of the League of Nations, they have to be submitted before they can become in accordance with the terms of the Treaty, and so far they have not been submitted. I ask the noble Duke to say if that is any exaggeration.
Now, one or two words as regards Article 22, in order to see what is the purpose of these Mandates, before I come to the actual terms of the particular Mandate. I think the principle is very well stated at the beginning. The principle is "that the well-being and development of such peoples (in the Mandated territories) form a sacred trust of civilisation." That shows clearly that the object of the principle of
752
the Mandate is not to exploit the Mandated territories in favour of the Mandatories in any way, but to place upon the Mandatories a high and solemn obligation to carry out their duties so that they shall do their best for the well-being and development of the people. That may be merely in one sense a matter of language, but it is a very important matter of language. But the Article goes on to say:—" Securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
Another question which I indicated to the Duke of Sutherland as one to which I wanted an answer was, What is the form of the securities for the performance of this trust, which either has been embodied, or which the Government think should be embodied, in one of these Mandates of what I call Form B? The next paragraph in Article 22 is extremely striking. It does not use the word "trust" again, but the word "tutelage." "Tutelage," of course, implies the relationship either between a parent and a child or between an instructor and a child. The paragraph goes on to make the statement that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. I want the noble Duke to say in what sense that is to be carried out. There has been a discussion as to whether the League there means the Assembly of the League or the Council of the League, but for my purpose, whether it means one or the other, I want to know how this instruction is to be carried out.
If the principle is not private advantage or public advantage for the Mandatory, but that the Mandatory is to exercise his duties on behalf of the League, how is that to be applied in practice? How are you to take away all the private interest, which otherwise might apply to the Mandatory countries and make them act not as Mandatories on behalf of the country which they represent, but as Mandatories on behalf of the League. That is a very important matter when one conies to the reality of things, if the original premise is accurate, as I have stated it—namely, that we are dealing with a sacred trust in favour of the Mandated countries, and from which the Mandatories should receive no immediate benefit at all.
Then there is a paragraph in Article 22 which refers wholly to the regions which come within Form B as regards Mandates. It is exceedingly specific. Here again, I want to ask the noble Duke how it is being

753
carried out. The paragraph I am going to read refers to the people of Central Africa. it says—
" The Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under certain conditions."
Four conditions are specifically stated. One is a guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion. We often hear that term used, but, in application, it is more difficult to determine. I f I may illustrate what I mean (I know the matter is dealt with in the special form, of Mandate), what liberty does that give in the matter of missionaries? Are any missionaries to be admitted— so long, of course, as they do not interfere with the maintenance of public order and morals?
The second condition is very important. It is the prohibition of abuses, such as the slave trade, the arms traffic, and the liquor traffic. As I read the Mandate, to the terms of which I am calling attention, none of these matters is prohibited. What is said is that they are to be under strict control. I think experience has been that, unless you have actual prohibition, "strict control" may mean very little indeed. Under the term "strict control" you may, practically, have the slave trade, or the arms traffic, or the liquor traffic. I have read what was said by one of the Governors of an African region that control of liquor traffic was practically always inefficient, and that what you wanted was actual prohibition. I must say, from information that has come to me, that I entirely accord with that view. Then, the Article says—
" The prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases, and of military training of the natives far other than police purposes and the defence of territory."
Surely, that is clear in language. It denotes, in words which seem to me to be incapable of any double construction, that. the training of the natives is not to be a training under which they can be taken out of the territory for fighting elsewhere. This raises a very important point. In the French translation, which, I suppose, is of equal validity with the English translation, the words are still more clear. They are "la défense du territoire "—that is, the defence of the territory, literally translated. Is it the view of His Majesty's Government that under Article 22 there is a solemn obligation, which all the Allied and Associated -Powers have recognised, that there should he no recruiting of natives in any of these Mandated territories
754
in order that they may be used for military purposes outside? That is a very strong and a very specific point.
I have been told that, the point has been raised by France. France is fully entitled to raise any point it thinks right, but I am told that. France holds that she is entitled to recruit the natives in order to use them for t he defence of France.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): What is the mistranslation?
LORD PARMOOR: I do not suggest that it affects the meaning, but I think the proper translation is "defence of the territory," "the territory" meaning the Mandated territory. The English version is "the defence of territory." I am told—it does not appear to me to be capable of argument, but it is extremely important—that on that phrase, "the defence of territory," it is argued that a Mandatory may train troops in the Mandated area and then export them, or take them out for the purposes of the defence of the Mandatory's territory. It seems to me absolutely essential that, if these Mandates dire to be carried out as sacred trusts, you cannot allow the native levies in these Mandated territories to be taken elsewhere, out of their own territory, for warlike purposes.
The last of the regulations applicable to these territories is designed to secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League." I want to know what precautions are being taken, or will be taken, in that respect. I will take as an illustration the Cameroons, because. I think the Mandatory there is not Great Britain. I have no doubt that in our own Mandated territories we shall carry out these obligations. What are the securities that our trade, for instance, will be treated in the Cameroons in the same way as the trade of the Mandatory country? It is extremely important, because, if you once shut tip one of these countries, so that it can be exploited for the benefit of the Mandatory country, the whole principle involved in "tutelage" and "sacred trust" really comes to an end. It is most important, therefore, that these principles should be observed, not only in the letter but in truth and in reality.
The only other matter in Article 22 to which I need call attention is the annual

755
Report which has to be rendered to the Council. I think I am right in saying that there has been no annual Report up to the present time and, therefore, whatever is being done in the Mandated territories is, at any rate so far, not subject to the conditions laid down in Article 22. Unfortunately, if there is delay, you will find that conditions may spring up which will make it difficult to apply these provisions in favour of the native population.
Lastly—and this, I think, raises rather a difficult problem. and I told the noble Duke what the point is—there is this provision in Article 22—.
"The degree of authority, control, or administration to he exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council."
We know that at the meeting at Geneva those words were construed by one side as equivalent to the Assembly of the League. I do not know exactly what interpretation was put upon them by the. President of the Council at that time. I should think it is perfectly clear. "Members of the League" is not exactly the same expression as "Assembly of the League," but what can it mean, except that in the first. case you are to have the security of the Assemble of the League and, if not previously agreed upon, t hen you are to have the matter explicitly defined in each case by the Council. It is a subject of very great importance, and I should like to know what the views of the Government are upon it. It is a matter which has to be decided. It is one in which, I think. the Government must have specific views one way or the other, because, of course, while you are disputing as to the nature of the authority, you do not get the authorisation which is required under the terms of Article 22. I do not think I need refer specifically to a clause with which we are all familiar—Clause 119 in the Treaty of Versailles. It deals only with the selection of the Mandatory, and I need not say anything further in regard to it.
After those observations I wish to say one or two words upon the form of the Mandate for East Africa, which is one of Form B Mandates which have been submitted to your Lordships. In the first place, let me express my own gratification that the Draft Mandate has been submitted so that it can be discussed by this House
756
before it is adopted or not by the Council of the League of Nations. It is obvious that we roust discuss it now. There is no good in discussing it after the fact is accomplished; we must discuss it now, or not at all.
About one point I do not seek to raise any question whatever, because it has been discussed already. That is the constitutional question as regards expenditure. I agree with the view as to the control of the house of Commons in matters of that kind, and I do not want to say anything further about it. But the Article which seems to me not to come up to the terms of Article 22 of the Covenant is Article 5. What does it say? First of all it provides—
" For the eventual emancipation of all slaves, and for as speedy an elimination of domestic and other slavery as social conditions will allow."
The last Return I have seen is one issued by the Foreign Office in 1913, which gives the number of slaves in German East Africa— this, of course, is part of German East Africa—as 185,000. What is meant by "the eventual emancipation of all slaves"? It may mean postponement. to the Greek Kalends as regards time, and I want to know what the view of the Government is, whether they intend that within a reasonable limit of time the slaves shall he emancipated in this Mandated territory under Form B?
Next, let me take paragraph (iii) of Article 5, which is very important. It says—
" Shall prohibit all forms of forced or compulsory labour, except for essential public works and services, and then only in return for adequate remuneration."
The noble Duke will know that. the line between forced and compulsory labour and slavery is a very fine one, and I want to ask him what is meant by "except for essential public works and services"? Does that phrase mean works or services which could not be carried out without forced labour? If it means works or services of that kind, is be prepared, or is the Government prepared, to give any limit within which we may hope that this form of slavery, either as regards forced or compulsory labour or slavery in the more ordinary meaning of the term, the whole evil system (as it is to my mind), may once and for all be destroyed.
I should also like to say a word or two

757
about paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article. I am entirely in favour of the fourth—
"Shall protect the natives from abuse and measures of fraud and force by the careful super-vision of labour contracts and the recruiting of labour."
That is an admirable provision and an extremely necessary one. I have already mentioned paragraph 5 incidentally, in dealing with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League. It is in these terms—
" Shall exercise a strict control over the traffic in arms and ammunition and the sate of spirituous liquors."
I say that is not by any means sufficient. Article 22 says "prohibition," and I do not believe that anything short of prohibition will be effective. The words "strict control" are capable of very loose application. It is "strict control" according to the point of view of the person who is responsible for the control. hope that we shall have some expectations held out that the actual terms of Article 22, which are very specific, shall be complied with, and that it will not only be a question of strict control but of absolute prohibition.
I do not wish to go back to what I have already said, but I do not believe that if the real desire is in the nature of a sacred trust to aid and assist the native population you can do it effectively without absolute prohibition, both of the traffic in arms and ammunition anti the sale of spirituous liquors. I do not think there are any further articles to which I desire to call attention, as I have already addressed your Lordships at some length, but it is only right to say that in my view, subject to the criticisms I have made, there is a great deal that is very admirable and beneficent in the Draft. Mandate to which have referred. As I have already stated, I think that probably the most beneficent of all the provisions in the Covenant of the League of Nations is that which provides for the protection of native populations, unable to stand by themselves, under what is called the stress of modern life or of modern conditions. So far, I may say, I am in favour of most of the provisions of this Draft Mandate. But on the particular points to which I have called your Lordships' attention, I hope that some further consideration may be given or that some statement may be made which will carry those points. I have given full notice to the noble Duke of the matters I wish to raise.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Par-moor, for the full notice which he gave me of the various Questions he has raised to-day. Firstly, I am going to reply to the Question he asked regarding Article 22 of the Covenant of the League. He asked whether the Covenant regards this as a trust for the benefit of the Mandated area, and not for the Mandatory. The reply to that is in the affirmative. The noble Lord asked, secondly, whether this is not emphasised in the use of the word "tutelage." Again, the reply is in the affirmative. The noble Lord says he is not immediately concerned with the Turkish Empire:Validate, but he wishes to know the Government's view of the words—" the wishes of these communities must be the principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory." I think I can only refer the noble Lord to Inv speech in this House on June 15, and to that of the Leader of the House on. March 14, in which the matter was discussed at great length.
The noble Lord calls attention also to the words '' the defence of territory" and the French rendering, la défense du territoire. This is. in effect, an inquiry as to what our policy is regarding the use of black troops by the French or by other nations, and it is a matter with which I do not feel justified in dealing, because it is one entirely for the Foreign Office.
The noble Lord next asks the nature of the animal Report to be submitted to the Council, and, in reply to that. I would point out that the nature of the Report is indicated in the appropriate Articles of the Draft:Mandate. if the noble Lord will look at Article 2 of the Draft Mandate for East Africa (British) this will be made quite clear to him. The noble Lord also asks whether the words, 'by the Members of the League "mean, in the opinion of the Government, "the Assembly of the League"? The reply to this is, I think, that "the Members of the League "undoubtedly means the "principal Allied and Associated Powers, acting on behalf of the League." If the noble Lord will look at the annexe at the end of Article 26 Of the Covenant, on page 12, he will have this made clear to him. Article 3 of the Covenant says: "The Assembly shall consist of representatives of the Members of the League." That will be found on page 1 of the Covenant. I do, not think there will be any difficulty in

759
differentiating between forced labour and the conditions of slavery—a matter which the noble Lord discussed at some length. The East African Mandate is a type of the B class. The Draft Mandate for the other British Mandated territories, which are included in the same category—namely, the portions of Togoland and the Cameroons, mandated to Great Britain—follow this model, mutatis mutandis.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Duke for the answers he has given, and for t he information he has supplied.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I shall be glad to give the noble Lord any futher information if he will give me previous notice.

BRITISH MANDATES.
LORD ISLINGTON LORD ISLINGTON had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government to what extent, if any, action has been taken by them in respect to responsibilities connected with territories administered by Great Britain under Mandate of the League of Nations prior to receiving the assent of Parliament; and to move for a Return stating the total military expenditure incurred in each of the territories administered since the acceptance of the Mandate of the League of Nations by Great Britain.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name in regard to Mandates is necessarily one of a somewhat comprehensive character, and I drafted it in that sense, having in mind the somewhat stringent strictures under which I came at the hands of the noble Earl the Leader of the House on a previous occasion when I discussed this matter in your Lordships' House. I am not prepared to say that he was not justified in expressing that reproach' to ire, and I desire, if possible, to avoid a repetition of it. I have, therefore, put down the Question in a somewhat comprehensive manner. It does not specify any particular Mandated territory, and I realise that it is difficult, in dealing with this matter, to draft a Question which has embodied in it so many very technical and various topics. In view of this, I have done what my noble friend has done, and have given notice to the noble Duke as to the main Questions I propose to put. I am sure that it is of much greater
760
convenience for debate to do this, and I hope it may result in having cleared up certain ambiguities and uncertainties which at present exist in the public mind in regard to these Mandates.
As to the Mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine, we have recently had a very full statement in another place by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I propose now to make only very few observations in regard to the proposals of the Secretary of State. The discussion in t he House of Commons has been adjourned, and Parliament is, therefore, in the case of these two Mandates, accorded an opportunity to discuss the policy for those two Mandates, and will subsequently have an opportunity of expressing its opinion, if it so thinks fit. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State for the Colonies laid stress on our obligations in the undertakings into which we had entered in the Middle East. He pointed out that our promises made it incumbent upon us honourably to fulfil them and not lightheartedly to repudiate them. He prefaced his very clear statement of policy by saving that it was no use spending time now in debating whether it was wise or unwise to have contracted these obligations. I think everybody must appreciate the situation in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies is placed in assuming the responsibility for those Mandates as they stand to-day, which have been recently transferred to the Office over which he presides.
It is not my intention to criticise the policy outlined by him, or the expenditure for which he finds it necessary to ask Parliament. Indeed, it is not possible for us in this House to criticise that expenditure effectively. That is a function which rests with the House of Commons, and it must be left to them to decide. At the same time, I cannot disguise from myself that whilst the expenditure which he asks the House of Commons to accept is materially reduced from that which has been expended in those countries in the previous year, still an enormous sum is involved. This expenditure, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself implied, is due to the policy that was initiated and developed in those countries during the past three years. It is that which makes it necessary for hint to-day, after all the ingenuity Ire has employed with his own advisers, to come to the House of Commons and ask

761
for £35,500,000 of British money as the irreducible minimum to meet, the necessities imposed by the previous obligations which have been undertaken. It is well that. the taxpayers of this country, who groan under the weight of overwhelming burdens, should realise that this sum of money represents in taxation, approximately, Is. in the£in Income Tax.
It must be left to the taxpayer to discover, as he will no doubt discover, what Imperial and national advantage is to be derived, directly or indirectly, from this enormous expenditure. It will also remain to be seen to what extent this expenditure, with its corresponding burdens, here and elsewhere, is going to stimulate the enthusiasm of the taxpayers of this country for this novel experiment of the Mandatory system as it has been developed under the auspices of His Majesty's Government during the past three years. He may come to realise that Rulers in some other countries, where apparently Parliamentary control is more effective than it is in our own country, were not unwise in insisting on the avoidance of this new form of burden with its countless obligations and overwhelming expense. The taxpayer may, at least, learn this lesson—and he is learning it in a hard and expensive school—that ideals, perfect though they are in theory, must not be adopted with quixotic precipitancy before practical examination has been given to them, before the cost and liabilities involved have been thoroughly investigated; more especially when the field selected for the promulgation of these ideals happen to be, as they are in some of these cases, the storm centres of the world.
One naturally asks how this has come about. How is it that we are to-day saddled with these expensive and troublesome responsibilities throughout the world? Undoubtedly, the official answer would be that they are the inevitable consequences of conquest, the inevitable penalties of victory on the part of. a Power which has world possessions. In part, that answer is true, and in some territories where the Mandatory system has been introduced I am not prepared to quarrel with it. Speaking unofficially, and in special regard to the two Mandated territories of Palestine and Mesopotamia, I should attribute it (and there are many who share my views) in a large measure to another reason which is specific and domestic in its character amongst ourselves, certainly in regard to the
762
shape and form in which these Mandates, and the expenditure attaching to them, have been developed. I attribute it to the absence, during the past three years, of effective Cabinet control and supervision, and to the withdrawal of Parliamentary control over the Executive.
It is common knowledge that these adverse tendencies in our constitutional system have been running positively rampant during the pa t three years, and it is almost inconceivable, had a constitutional system been properly working, through the Cabinet and Parliament during that time, that these additional and, in many respects, ill-considered commitments, would have been added to an Empire already immense, and one which by natural consequences is increasing daily in difficulty and responsibility. It cannot be conceived that these additional burdens would have been lightly undertaken under such a procedure at a time when our financial credit and our capital arc at a lower ebb than ever before; at a time when our shrunken resources are demanded to repair and reconstruct our industrial position, which was never more grave than it is to-day. Had Parliament and the Cabinet considered, as they should have considered, all the issues at stake, the inevitable consequences at home and abroad of this policy in all its details, it would at least have been initiated and developed on lines less prone to risk and with less heavy liabilities than those which are the outcome of the policy that was adopted.
However, the procedure I have suggested was not followed. In its place was substituted a secretive and bureaucratic form of machinery, partly almost individual in its character in the case of Palestine, partly Departmental, and partly composed of a loosely constituted Committee. I have no doubt seine of the individuals in the Executive would say that what has taken place is due to one of these causes; others, that it is due to another cause. I say that the real offenders in this matter are the. Executive Government who ought to have estimated tile cost, and, in consultation with Parliament throughout, should have framed and adopted a more prudent policy,. having regard to the financial capacity of the country.
There were two observations in the Secretary of State's speech, which I am sure everyone will endorse, having a close

763
bearing on our future in the East, especially as we have assumed these added responsibilities. The Secretary of State urged the supreme importance of working in close accord with France and the immense importance of concluding Peace with Turkey at the earliest possible date. I believe the latter realisation to be indispensable to the future conduct of our affairs, in a successful form, in the Middle and Far East. Good will and a clear understanding with Turkey must, in a large measure, be the basis of our continued good relations with the Moslem world throughout the East, and it is to be regretted that this was not realised two years ago. No effort should now be spared to conclude Peace with Turkey as soon as possible. It gives at least sonic assurance that we have a Minister in charge of the Colonial Office, and of these Mandates of the Middle East, who fully realises its importance, and I hope lie will exercise all the determination and persistency with which he is endowed to convert some of his colleagues to the same point of view.
There is only one Question I desire to ask the noble Duke in regard to Mesopotamia. The Secretary of State told us the expenditure that would be incurred and how it would be incurred, but he did not mention the expenditure involved in the civil administration of Trait and Kurdistan. I presume that the expense so incurred will be met by taxation within the country itself, and that there will not be an additional burden upon the taxpayers of this country. It is clear that for sonic time Kurdistan will have to be practically administered by the High Commissioner and a staff of capable officers, and, of course, for some time to come, the Arab Government will have to be assisted by competent British officers throughout Irak. Perhaps my noble friend will be ready to answer me on that point.
I turn for one moment to Africa. As regards au official statement as to the position of these Mandates, we have hitherto been singularly ill-informed. As my noble friend said, I do not think that we are in possession of any Report as to what is being done in regard to the administration of this country since the Armistice. First of all, I would take the two small Mandates which we have on the West, which are known as the British Cameroons and the British Togoland Mandates. I read the speech of the Governor
764
of Nigeria to his Legislative Council the other day, in which he informed them that the British Cameroons Mandate was to be brought. under his control as Governor of Nigeria. and further, that the deficit, which I believe amounts to £65.000 for the past year, was to be paid out of the funds of the existing Crown Colony of Nigeria. He went on to say that that additional burden was likely to continue for some years.
I should like to know if the same arrangement is to be made in regard to the Togo-land British Mandate; whether that, in its turn, is to be placed under the administration of the Governor of the Gold Coast; whether, in case there is a deficit there, the noble Duke will tell us what it is.and whether it is to be paid out of the funds of the Gold Coast. This is one of those point, which have considerable importance attached to them. A new liability is laid upon one of our existing Colonies, and I should have thought that it was one which, before being undertaken, should have received the assent of Parliament. It may be a right proposal or a Wrong proposal. From the view of administration it. is probably the best course. But Parliament, at least, ought to be fully informed and given an opportunity to express its views, because it is undoubtedly an embarrassment to one of our existing Colonies.
It must be remembered that the condition under which a Mandated country is to be administrated must vary in many important respects from the conditions at present prevailing under a Crown Colony or a Protectorate. If. therefore, a territory is, in future, to be composed partly of a Crown Colony and partly of a Mandated territory, and is to conic under one and the same Government, with the financial responsibility imposed upon the shoulders of that Government and that territory, there will, at least, need to be very careful consideration as to the mode by which the work can best be conducted, without. presenting what obviously might create anomalies in conditions as between one set. of native tribes and another, and so on, and thereby arousing material grievances within the area of jurisdiction.
As regards the administration of the Mandated area, a Report, as the noble Lord said, is to be made annually to the Council of the League of Nations. I hope the noble Duke will be able to assure us clearly, on

765
behalf of His Majesty's Government, that a Report will also be sent home and subjected to the consideration of Parliament, every year. It is obvious, or at any rate it is likely, that modification will be found necessary in the Mandate itself. If this joint form of administration is to prevail in the future, and we are to bear the whole responsibility, and the Colony is to have imposed upon it the financial liability, there should also, I think, be a precise assurance by His Majesty's Government that Parliament will be fully consulted in the matter before any change is made. Matters affecting materially the administration and financial position of Crown Colonies, such as those to which I have just alluded, really cannot. be relegated to the confirmation or approval of the League of Nations until they have been fully discussed and approved by our own Parliament.
In saying that I am not making any attack upon the League of Nations. I think they are quite innocent. victims. But I think other noble Lords will agree with me if I say that the Government have been very much too prone, in the last two years, to shield themselves and their unconstitutional conduct behind the shadowy form of the League of Nations. That is a point that we cannot emphasise ton much in insisting upon ill these questions being brought before the Parliament representing peoples upon whom these responsibilities are imposed. In that connection, Sir Eric Drummond. in a public statement the other day, said that neither the Council of the League of Nations nor the Permanent Mandates Commission can impose upon the Mandatory Power any alteration in the terms of tile Mandate; once they have been determined. This shows clearly that., in all these changes, it is to the Parliament of the country concerned that these matters should be referred.
Another question which I should like to ask the noble Duke is this. What attitude has been taken up towards the United States in regard to these Mandates? The Government of the United States, some months ago, put in a very strong claim, through their Secretary of State, that these Mandates should be communicated to them, upon what were, I think, the reasonable grounds that the Mandates had been offered by the Associated Powers, and that the United States were; therefore, participants in the offer. I have not heard whether these Mandates have been officially
766
communicated to the Government of the United States. When a Question was asked in another place some time ago, Mr. Bonar Law, who answered it, admitted that it was right and desirable that the Government of the United States should be communicated with officially in regard to these Mandates. I need not emphasise the importance of that. Although, for the time being, the United States stands outside the machinery of the League of Nations, it is of the utmost importance, having regard to commercial and fiscal questions, as well as social and native questions, that will arise in these territories, that we should move along the line of complete agreement with the United States.
I would say one word on the other Mandated territory, Tanganyika. I saw in the Press the report of a speech by the Secretary of State for the Colonies before the Imperial Conference, in which he informed them that he had asked for one and a half millions sterling from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to meet the deficit of that country, but that only £900,000 had been made available. I assume that this will be in the form of a loan, and I should like to ask 'whether that loan has yet received the sanction of Parliament. I should have thought that, if it had been done in accordance with proper precedent and. procedure, it would require an Act of Parliament. Perhaps my noble friend will tell me, on behalf of the Office which he represents, what. has been done in regard to that point. The Secretary of State, in that speech, proceeded to warn us that a large additional expenditure will be essential if Tanganyika is to be properly developed, as it was hitherto being developed under the German Government. There again we have an additional burden for this country, and I think it must be made clear to us that, whatever is done, whatever additional expenditure is incurred, should only be done after it has been fully discussed by the House of Commons, and has received its sanction.
I say this all the more because of another remark in that speech, which may have attracted the attention of some of your Lordships. The Secretary of State went on to say—
" We have got very little money. The great expense of Palestine and Mesopotamia has thrown such burdens upon our shoulders that everything with regard to Crown Colonies has been very severely pruned."
There opens out a very serious question. We have to watch very carefully that our existing responsibilities in our own Crown Colonies and. Protectorates are not going to be prejudiced because of these new commitments that we have undertaken. It is a matter which I would refer to the most serious consideration of your Lordships, and, indeed, of His Majesty's Government.
One further word in regard to the whole situation in Central and East Africa. Our possessions in East and Central Africa, quite apart from Tanganyika, demand to-day the very earnest attention of the Government. There are many and most urgent problems requiring immediate adjustment. There is the question of the political and economic status of the Indian community in these countries. They are suffering unquestioned disabilities, and their grievances are being ventilated both in India and throughout these countries. There is also the question of the native communities, giving rise to serious apprehension among some responsible bodies of opinion, both as regards the conditions, to-day prevailing, of labour imposed upon 'native communities, and as regards the treatment meted out to them with respect to the reservation of their land. I mention the problems in our own Crown Colonies of Kenya, and in a less degree in Uganda, and in the country of Zanzibar, where we have responsibilities, because I venture to say it will be impossible now to separate them from similar problems which must prevail in Tanganyika. I am sure that it will be found, in dealing with these problems, that the whole area must be taken into account, whether Mandated country or Crown Colony, especially in that particular zone. This is a very important question upon which I shall not this evening do more than touch. All I desire to say is that the redress and adjustment of these grievances, and the permanent settlement of these problems, which really are a worldwide concern in our position as a great Empire, are, first and foremost, functions which the Imperial Parliament must deal with, and no other body outside.
I venture to ask the noble Duke whether he will convey to the Secretary of State an invitation from me that, before the end of this session, he should give a very full statement in another place of the present and future administration of these territories, which now conic under his control.
I would further urge upon him, in the strongest tennis, that if these complex, and in many respects acutely controversial, problems are to find solutions at his hands, I am confident it will not be through the instrument of a mere Departmental conference in this country. I believe that it can only be done successfully, and to the actual acceptance of the contending parties in those countries, by the appointment of a strong and impartial Royal Commission, which should be sent out to those countries this winter, with a specific reference to inquire into, and report to Parliament on, the whole subject.
These are the main Questions which I desire to ask. I have added to my Question a Motion that a Return should be granted to Parliament of the military expenditure in those countries since they have come under the Mandate. The noble Duke may tell me that it is difficult for him to give a precise Return in that connection, but in view of the fact that we really know so little of what has been done in those countries, not since they became Mandated but since the Armistice, and in view of the fact that in some of them we know there have been military garrisons, I think it will be to the advantage of Parliament that we should be informed as to the precise expenditure in that connection that has been involved by our military occupation. I shall be very much obliged to the noble Duke if he will give me an answer. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: My Lords, before I say a very few words indeed with regard to the general question which Lord Islington has brought before your Lordships, may I refer to three or four particular points, upon each of which a sentence or two would be enough for my purpose? In the first place, let me thank the noble Duke for the information with which he supplied me, in answer to a Question which I put a short time ago, with regard to what was being done in Palestine in connection with a survey to ascertain what territory was suitable for immigration. Lord Islington referred to the case of Kurdistan. I think we should have a little more information with regard to the precise nature of the relations that we are going to undertake towards that extremely difficult country.
There is no part of the East which presents more difficulties, from the physical character of the country and the habits of

769
the people, and one of the things to be most carefully guarded is to secure full protection and safety for two ancient Christian communities, which have suffered terribly during the war—namely, the Nestorian or Chaldean and Assyrian Christians—small communities, one-half of whom have been destroyed by massacres which the Turks conducted in 1915. There was no excuse whatever for those massacres, because it: was never alleged, even by the Turks, that there was any dissatisfaction, or any threat to the. Turkish Government. It was a perfectly wanton destruction of Christian life, because it was Christian. In any steps taken to secure the welfare of that. part of the world, and to deal with the difficult problem of Kurdistan, the scheme might to include provision for the safety of the Nestorian and Assyrian Christians, and, if possible, their restoration to the territories from which they were expelled. and the giving to them of full protection there.
That leads me to make one remark upon an observation which fell from Lord Islington. He suggessted that; we should immediately endeavour to arrange Peace with Turkey. I do not know upon what terms that would be accomplished. I should say that our great mistake, ever since the end of the war, has been submission to Turkey; in not having dealt firmly enough with Turkey; in having; yielded to the friends of Turkey in other countries,I think she has no friends left in this country—and in having neglected to take steps for the protection of the Christian communities whom the Turks have endeavoured to destroy. lf, therefore, any Peace is to he made with Turkey, if any arrangement is to be made, either with the legitimate Government at Constantinople or with what I might call the rebel government under Mustapha Kemal at Angora, it ought to be an absolute condition that proper provision should be made for the safety of the Christian communities.
As your Lordships know, the Treaty of Sèvres did contain a provision that there should be an independent Christian State, and that Christian State signed the Treaty of Sevres. I will not trouble your Lordships with the complications which have supervened. It would take too long, and would lead us too far from the main subject which we are discussing. But I express the earnest hope that no representations
770
made by the friends of the Turks, no representations made by disloyal Moslems in India, no representations made by any other Power, will prevent this country from discharging the duty to which she is bound by the assurances she gave during the war, and which were practically renewed in the Treaty of Sevres, that the Christian population should be protected and should no longer be left at the mercy of their implacable enemies. So much for that.
With reference to the points which were raised with respect to South-East Africa by my noble friend, Lord Islington, and by my noble friend, Lord Parmoor, I should like to express the hope that very great attention will be given to what was said by Lord Pa rumor with regard to the absolute necessity of imposing a complete prohibition on the importation of arms and of liquor. As he said, restriction is no use; restriction will be evaded; there will be unscrupulous persons who will endeavour to bring these things in if there is any door left open by which they can enter. I think. therefore, that complete prohibition will he the only adequate remedy.
Lord Parmoor also raised a point of very great importance, but I am sure it is present to His Majesty's Government—the question of allowing any Mandatory Power to raise native troops, not merely for the preservation of order in the Mandated territory, but to be used as its soldiers elsewhere. That would be absolutely contrary to the plain language and meaning of the League of Nations Covenant. It would also be in the highest degree inexpedient, and would strike at the root of the whole theory of the Mandates. It would be a complete negation of the doctrine that the Mandate is a trust for the benefit of the people mandated, and not for t he benefit of the Mandatory country.
Coming now to the main subject which my noble friend brought before your Lordships, may I observe that a great many of the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the question of Mandates spring from the fact that the Covenant of the League is extremely vague on the subject. It gives the impression of not having been thought out properly, and, therefore, it has been quite easy and natural for His Majesty's Government to be somewhat vacillating and somewhat obscure in dealing with matters which the League Covenant left so vague. Certainly we are very much

771
in the dark in the matter. We have received in Parliament far less information than we are entitled to receive.
May I sum up four points in which, it seems to me, it is absolutely essential that the relations between Parliament and the League of Nations and His Majesty's Government—for there are these three parties to the matter—should be cleared up? In the first place, Parliament ought to know the terms of any Draft Mandate before it goes to the Council of the League. I understand that His Majesty's Government have already admitted that that is the proper course. In the second place, when the Council of the League has drafted a Mandate, it ought, before this country finally accepts it, to be again submitted to Parliament., in order that Parliament may know what we are accepting. It does not follow that the form in which it comes from the Council of the League will be the form which Parliament will prefer; but Parliament, on behalf of the nation, is accepting the responsibility. The nation accepts it, and Parliament is the body entitled to say what the wishes of the nation are.
In the third place, Parliament ought to be supplied with full information, from time to time, of what is being done under the Mandates. There ought to be some person in each House of Parliament who is kept perfectly informed of what is being done under a Mandate, and who is prepared to answer questions and satisfy us here, and satisfy another place, of the wisdom and propriety of the measures which are taken, and of the exactness with which the provisions of the Covenant regarding Mandated territories are being carried out. We have not yet reached that stage. I suppose we may expect it, and I think we are fully entitled to have it. I hope it will be given in a very full form, so as to enable the criticisms that Parliament may bring to bear to be effective and helpful.
In the next place, there is the very difficult question of the Mandates given to other countries. When we are parties to giving a Mandate to another country, and giving the sanction of this country to what another country does, we ought to know what will be done under that Mandate. In other words, we ought to know the form of the Mandate and the provisions it contains; because we are, so to speak, guarantors for Mandated countries. This is
772
a kind of General Alliance, in which all the Powers guarantee the Mandated territories to the Mandatory Power. Moreover, we are guarantors to the populations subject to the Mandate that they will be properly treated, in accordance with the provisions of the Mandate, and in accordance with the principles laid down in the Covenant of the League. In order to do that we ought to know upon what terms we assent to the Mandate which is to be given to some other country. And if that Mandate contains provisions which are openly at variance with the provisions of the Covenant, or which give an opening for evading those terms, and of enabling any other country to do what it ought not to do under the Mandate, then we ought to have an opportunity of knowing that and, if necessary, of remonstrating.
These four points may be summed up generally in saying that Parliament ought to be kept apprised at every stage of what is being done to create a Mandate and to administer it, and that we ought to have due opportunities of expressing our opinion thereupon. What the noble Lord, Lord Islington, said, in dwelling upon the difficulties which are involved in the whole Mandatory system, and in pointing out that we do not yet see how it would work out in the concrete, leads me to repeat a suggestion which I once made to your Lordships on the subject. That is that it may deserve to be considered whether there ought not to be some steps taken to determine more precisely what are the relations of the three parties in this matter —His Majesty's Government., the League of Nations, and Parliament—and whether it might not be a convenient method of investigating that question if a Joint Committee of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons were set up to examine into it, and to report upon the best methods of administering the Mandatory system, compatible with the control and due opinion of Parliament. With deference to the House and to the opinion of His Majesty's Government, I submit that suggestion.
I feel that, after the many debates we have had here, we have not yet come into clear, open air. We are still rather in a mist as to how the Mandate system is going to work. The first step to dispel that mist is to have a clear grasp of the relations between the three parties I have mentioned and to put upon a permanent

773
footing the principles upon which the League of Nations is to work, bearing in mind that this country cannot shuffle off its responsibilities to the League of Nations but must be responsible in the face of the world for what it does as a Mandatory Power. I hope that His Majesty's Government will not think that I desire to pass any censure, because I fully recognise the extreme difficulty of the matter; the fact that we are still in the initial stage, and that it is not possible at first to see exactly how the thing will work out. But I think we have reached a point at which it is necessary to take a much clearer view of the whole system than we have yet done.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, the questions which have been raised in regard to this matter this afternoon are of extreme importance. A limited financial explanation has been given in another place by the Secretary of State, and the other House has received a good deal of information which has reached this House only through the medium of the public Press. There has also been a debate of a somewhat inconclusive and not very searching character in another place, whereas it may be impossible to raise a similar debate in this House. My noble friend has spoken of the Mandates which have not yet received Parliamentary sanction but which now appear, as I understand the matter, to be under the consideration of the Council of the League of Nations. Those Mandates entail responsibilities and unknown expenditure upon this country. On the other hand, they may be said, in a certain sense, to destroy the sovereign rights of the Mandatory Power and to set up what may almost amount to international control over territories in which the responsibility for maintaining order will fall wholly upon this country.
I must not discuss the Mandates at length to-day, but there are one or two points to which I desire to draw the attention of your. Lordships, because I am not sure that they are realised even by the noble and learned Lord who has spoken this afternoon. In Mesopotamia, under Article 1, all is made to depend upon what is called "the Organic Law," which Organic Law, it is laid down, must contain provisions to facilitate the progressive development of Mesopotamia as an independent State. I suppose what is called the Organic Law is the Constitution which we are about to set up. We have seen the results of
774
attempts at constitutional government in Persia, and they have certainly not proved very hopeful hitherto, though the conditions there are not dissimilar from those in Mesopotamia. Whatever government is set up in Mesopotamia will tumble to pieces absolutely unless British forces stand behind it. Those forces must be paid for entirely by this country, and no one at this stage can estimate what the cost will be.
In Article 2 what is called the Mesopotamian Government may or may not, as it pleases, contribute to the cost of the forces necessary to defend the country. Are we going to control that Government in its financial character, or are we not? If not, the time may come when that Government will refuse to bear the expenditure for its own defence. Generally speaking, the Mandates are so drawn as to prevent a Mandatory Power from getting any special advantage to compensate for very heavy responsibilities, danger in some cases, and in all cases an unknown expenditure. Individual citizens of every Member State of the League of Nations and any company registered under the laws of such State have apparently just the same rights as citizens and corporations of the Mandatory Power. If I have read it aright, that seems to me to be intolerable, and it would be interesting to know whether the French Mandates have the same provision as that, or whether our friends across the Channel have given rather closer regard to their interests than we have given to ours.
The Secretary of State has said that the garrison of Mesopotamia is to be reduced after October 1 to what he calls the "twelve-battalion scale." But neither he nor anybody else can tell whether that scale will prove to be sufficient. His plan, as he outlined it, is that the river from Basra to Baghdad is to be held by troops, and from Baghdad to Mosul is apparently to be controlled by air forces, and the Kurds, as the noble Lord has said, because they will not submit to any form of Arab government, are to be governed direct by the High Commissioner. Then an Arab Army is to be created, which will take some time, and will require from us some of our best men, urgently needed at this time by India, who, unfortunately, are not going to India. I cannot attempt to deal with all these various plans, but surely, as previous speakers have said, they ought to be fully discussed in your Lordships' House.

775
Turning now to the Palestinian Mandate, it is laid down in the Preamble that the first duty of the Mandatory Power is to establish a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and the establishment of that national home is not to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the Palestinians. I think we can already see that the problem is not soluble. Under Article 4 a Zionist organisation is set up, which will be governed from foreign countries and which is given the dominant position in the economic development of the whole country of Palestine. By Article 22 we are forced by the Mandate to make Hebrew the official language of the whole country and also to put Hebrew upon the stamps and on the coinage. As I read the Mandate, we are even made responsible, in a sense, to the Hejaz, among other countries, for doing that with the Hebrew language.
This Mandate must evidently have been drafted with very capable Zionist assistance. No one has yet defined accurately what "a national home" means, but we have already taken some steps, as I pointed out the other day, in violation of our pledges to the Palestinians, and that is the reason of the serious situation which has now arisen. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has said that "there is really nothing for the Arabs to be frightened about." But he ignored the very strong feeling of the Christians of Palestine and elsewhere, to which the Pope very recently referred. Palestine is to cost only £2,500,000 next year, if all goes well, and, taking it in conjunction with Mesopotamia, the total expenditure is only to he £27,500,000—also if all goes well. I am afraid one cannot attach any great authority to those estimates. However, very little expenditure need have been applied to Palestine but for the Mandate and the very ill-advised action; as I think it, of the Zionists themselves. Mr. Churchill said that that was "the only cause of the unrest."
There is one more feature of the Mandatory system on which I must say one word. As my noble friend has pointed out, the Mandatory Power has to report every year to the Council of the League of Nations, and, as I read the Covenant, it seems open to any Member of the League of Nations to bring a railing accusation against some unhappy Mandatory who is really doing his very best in what may be exceedingly difficult circumstances. I would remind your Lordships that the following countries are original Members of the League of
776
Nations:—Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Hayti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Uruguay. Those are all most estimable American States, but they really are not in the least concerned about the affairs of Irak, as I suppose we are now to call Mesopotamia, or the affairs of Palestine, and vet, in a sense, they seem to have received supervisory powers over both those countries.
This, again, seems to me to be quite an intolerable condition, and I see some dangers to the British Empire, and even to the harmony of the world, arising from what the noble Viscount has called, or intimated was, the ill-digested and illusory scheme of the League of Nations. An American writer the other clay, surveying the Members of the League of Nations, calculated that thirty-two of them would be adherents of Germany, sixteen might be pro-Ally, and two would be neutral. I do not know what value can be attached to that estimate, but it does not seem to me to be altogether improbable.
VISCOUNT BRYCE: I did not say the League of Nations was illusory. I think the idea is admirable.
LORD SYDENHAM: The noble Viscount hinted that the Covenant was ill-digested. All these questions require rather more light than we have now got, and if the excellent suggestion of the noble Viscount could be carried out, and a Joint Committee set up, I think the confidence Parliament would have in what is going forward would be much greater than it is at the present moment. We seem to be involved in an abyss of heavy expenditure without any corresponding advantage to our overburdened taxpayers, some of whom are really now on the road to ruin. We ought to be enabled to understand whither we are being led by the League of Nations and its Covenant.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I desire to say very few words upon the general question, but there are one or two remarks that I should like to utter in endorsement of those already made by the three speakers to-night. In this matter we seem sometimes to be rather worrying and pestering the Government with Questions. I do not want to be worrying arid pestering, because I realise to the full the enormous difficulty

777
which accompanies the starting of a great new system of Mandates for the first time in the world's life. But it is of the most vital importance, the system being new, that we should. guard ourselves against precedents being set up which may afterwards be quoted as to the order of proceedings respecting information to Parliament, to our Allies and other Members of the League of Nations, and also, of course, to the countries themselves for which the Mandates are created.
The noble Duke has to-night answered with great lucidity Questions of a particular kind, and I have no doubt lie is going to answer others in what he will say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Islington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bryce. I hope we shall hear something to-night as to whether we are to expect operations to be made known, both before the Mandate is operative and when it has begun to work in the Mandated regions. If I am to judge from Questions that have been answered before in this House, and from conversations one has had, even the Government itself is finding a little difficulty in disentangling the complications as between the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office and, perhaps, the India Office, in regard to some of these particular matters. If it be difficult for those upon whom responsibility rests in the Government to do this, how much greater must the difficulty be for us outside.
In answering one Question to-night, the noble Duke said it was not one for the Colonial Office, as such, but one for the Foreign Office. I venture, with due respect, to say that that is not an answer which we expect. We are asking the Government as a whole and not one particular Department, and our object is to get matters cleared up. We realise the difficulties of the situation, but there is danger in unconsciously laying down rules and setting precedents, with regard to those Mandated territories, which might be quoted hereafter as representing the method by which the thing had come into operation. We ought at the time to realise fully to what we are committing ourselves, and how far we are supposed,to be parties to the transaction. It is a large and general question. I do not expect to have everything answered in a perfectly categorical way, but it would be an immense help if we knew better, in regard to some of the regions referred to, how we now stand.
778
The noble Viscount, Lord Bryce, mentioned—and I desire to endorse his remarks the extraordinarily difficult situation in Kurdistan. That region of Kurdistan is one of the most difficult in the world to know how to administer, with its rival races and creeds, and the wild character of many of its inhabitants. On the other hand, it is one of those regions whose inhabitants have distinctly acted, during the last five years, on undertakings given by us. There can be no question of that. I have abundant personal knowledge of the feelings entertained by some of those belonging to the Christian races in the Kurdistan mountains. They did enter, at a moment of extraordinary difficulty, upon what they believe to be a firm Alliance with us. They understood that they would have our firm protection, that we would see them through, and that everything would Le all right when it was over. I realise that circumstances have changed since then, and that we may not he able now to fulfil in the letter the expectations which we ourselves entertained, and which we encouraged them to entertain, regarding the future.
It would be of very great advantage if we could know now what are the steps that are being, taken, and how far we are supposed to parties to them. Or, are we merely to wait. until afterwards and then find that we have been too late, and that things have taken place in that extraordinarily difficult. region about which there is no use speaking any more? Everything will have been done in regard to the boundaries of territories, the resettlement of the people brought away from their homes, and the question of their protection. We have armed them, as they put it, and left them to themselves. What are -they to expect in the difficult. position in which they may be placed? It is exceedingly hard to formulate any detailed Questions which can elicit substantial replies upon this subject, because we know so very little about what is going on. I am not surprised that we do know little. The noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office may be able, perhaps, in a general way to give us some light upon the kind of difficulties to be encountered, the way in which they are now being faced, the degree of responsibility of Parliament for the initial stages, and the time at which it would he too late for us to say anything in the matter.
I apologise for tire rather general and perhaps discursive character of the sugges-

779
tions or requests that I make, but I cannot help thinking, if the noble Earl were able, with his unrivalled power of exposition of such a problem, to say something to us on the general aspect., that it would be of great advantage, and would help us to know how far we are compromised in laying down rules which may hereafter form a precedent.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I shall take the opportunity, in the first place, of referring categorically to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Islington, though we have all listened with much interest to the remarks made to-night by other noble Lords, and by the most. rev. Primate. I will take the Questions in the order in which Lord Islington asked them. The first Question that was raised was in regard to the civil administration in Mesopotamia. The Vote for Middle Eastern Services, which was passed on Tuesday by the House of Commons, shows what is the estimated charge upon the British taxpayer for this year. The figures are given under sub-heads (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j), and a full explanation is given on the last page of the Estimate.
The charges represent—

(1) The discharge of Imperial liabilities which do not really belong to Mesopotamia (sub-heads (i) and (j)).

(2) The capital expenditure on the railways, which are the property of His Majesty's Government, and not of the Mesopotamian Government (sub-head (h)).

(3) The maintenance of native levies which are being established as a means of reducing the cost of the Imperial garrison (sub-head (g)).

(4) A contribution towards the cost of the High Commissioner and his staff, who have Imperial responsibilities which are not purely local (sub-head (f)).

The civil administration of Mesopotamia is expected to pay its way, although we may have to take a Vote for the accumulated deficit up to March 31 last; but that deficit will represent a clearing up of Imperial liabilities, many of them of a military character, and not really a deficit on the civil finances. This matter is being investigated and we have not yet got the figures.
The second Question was the number of civil officers that were being retained to
780
assist the Arab Government. The British officers employed in Mesopotamia will fall into two distinct categories. The first category is that of an Advisory staff, which will include the advisers attached to the Arab Ministers and to the Arab District officers, and also to the Arab Army. All the advisory staff will be servants of His Majesty's Government and not of the Mesopotamian Government. They will be seconded to Mesopotamia for a period of years, their pay being met from Mesopotamian revenues. It is difficult to give an accurate forecast of the numbers likely to be employed, but a provisional estimate has been given by the High Commissioner as follows: —Seven advisers to Ministers, eleven divisional advisers and twenty-one assistant divisional advisers. In addition to these it is anticipated that not more than half a dozen British officers will be attached to the Arab Army which is being raised in Mesopotamia.
The second category is that of officers of technical and scientific services, such as railways, posts, telegraphs, agriculture, etc. These will be servants of the Mesopotamian Government, and their number depends entirely on the wishes of that Government. Until the Constitution of Mesopotamia has been framed in the Organic Law, which the Mandatory has undertaken to draft within three years of the coining into force of the Mandate, the Mesopotamian Government must be regarded as purely provisional. At present it consists of a Council of State under the presidency of the Naqib of Baghdad, and the technical and scientific staffs hitherto employed by the British Administration are now working under this provisional Government.
With regard to Kurdistan, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords as a matter of great importance, the policy is to reduce the number of British officers to an absolute minimum. As the Secretary of State for the Colonies explained in the House of Commons, Kurdistan is to remain for the present in direct relations with the High Commissioner, and will not be placed under the Mesopotamian Government. Out of the thirty-two divisional and assistant divisional advisers contemplated by the High Commissioner it is proposed that six should be stationed at Kurdistan, three of whom will be at Kirkuk and three at Suliemaniah. With regard to the British

781
levies, the High Commissioner's scheme, which is under consideration, allows for one Inspector-General, one Deputy Inspector-General, six area commandants, three senior Staff officers and forty-one junior Staff officers and instructors, which allows for ten being on leave. As the Arab levies are gradually replaced by the Arab Army it is anticipated that these numbers will be considerably reduced.
As regards Togoland, our part consists of a strip adjoining the Gold Coast, and contains no ports, railways, or industries. It, follows that it cannot raise much revenue on its own as our revenues in the Gold Coast depend mainly on Customs and railway receipts. It has to be administered as part of the Gold Coast with which it is closely connected. The Anglo-German boundary was mostly an artificial one and was not satisfactory. The administration costs very little and is carried out by increasing slightly the staff of the Gold Coast. Until October, 1920, we held Lome and ran the railways, but have now retired to the part of the country which is to be assigned to us under Mandate. While we were in Lome the country paid for itself. It is not known whether it will now or not, but the deficit cannot be great. Any such deficit will be borne by Gold Coast funds. As to deficits it will probably not be worth while to attempt to frame a separate budget for our piece of Togoland, and the expense of so doing would hardly justify itself.
The boundary with the French was arranged to follow tribal and natural divisions as far as possible, and the Boundary Commission will adjust matters to the best of their ability in delimiting the boundary. The Togoland Mandate is also being printed. There is no military expenditure in the Togoland Mandated territory. It is policed by the Gold Coast police forces. Prior to 1920, a company of the Cold Coast regiment was stationed in Togoland but is now withdrawn.
That part of the Cameroons, for which Britain is to receive a Mandate, will be administered by the Nigerian Government. The Northern districts have been attached to the Nigerian provinces of Yola and Bornu and are under the supervision of the residents of those provinces. No separate accounts are kept of the finances of these districts. By far the greater part of the British sphere is administered as a separate Cameroons province and a self-contained budget is prepared for it. The
782
deficit on that budget in 1921–22 was approximately £21,500. In the current year the deficit is estimated at £78,900. The increase is due mainly to exceptionally heavy expenditure which is being undertaken on roads, bridges, buildings, and telegraph lines. The damage done in the war has to be repaired and communications improved.
An expansion of revenue, after the development of trading facilities, is looked to as the remedy for the deficit, but it is too early, especially in view of the present fall in value of many tropical products, to forecast the future trade prospects of the province. In 1920, however, the Customs receipts considerably exceeded the estimate and there was a tendency for new trading centres to be started in the interior. The deficit will be borne by Nigerian funds, as if the status of the territory was that of a backward Nigerian province. The Foreign Office is having the Mandates printed and they will be published at an early date. There is no truth in the statement that restrictions on British subjects in the territory are greater than they were under the Germans. The boundary between the British and French spheres has been based primarily on natural features, but it is an instruction to the Commissioners, who will eventually delimit the boundary on the spot, that they shall make all efforts possible to observe tribal limits.
With regard to the Tanganyika territory the noble Lord asked whether it was to be united to Kenya under one Governor. This is permissible under Article 10 of the Draft Mandate, provided that the provisions of the Mandate are in no way infringed. This is not, however, at present contemplated. It may be mentioned that there is now no separate civil administration and military administration as seems to be implied i n the Question. The finances of Tanganyika territory are managed on the same lines as an ordinary British Protectorate which is in receipt of a Grantin-Aid. The estimated deficit for 1920–21 is £164,000. This, together with the loan of £750,000, referred to, is to be provided from the British Exchequer, precisely as in the case of the loans to Nyasaland and Somaliland. In no case is an Act of Parliament required. The Indian Penal Code has been applied mutatis mutandis to Tanganyika territory, not by Order in Council but by a law of the territory, No. 7 of December 14, 1920.

783
The frontier, as described in the Draft Mandate, follows the natural features of the country and the existing recognised boundaries as far as possible. It will no doubt be an instruction to the Boundary Commissioners to adjust the line so as to avoid all unnecessary disturbance of tribal limits. The natives of the country will be treated with justice and consideration. It is laid down in the Draft Mandate that their rights and interests shall be respected and safeguarded. This would have been the natural duty of His Majesty's Government in assuming the administration, and no other policy would have been in accordance with British traditions.
As regards the Return of military expenditure since the date of the acceptance of the Mandate of the League of Nations by Great Britain—the point was raised by Lord Islington—I regret that it has not been possible to obtain the exact figure up to the present, but the matter will be gone into, in conjunction with the War Office, as soon as possible, and the information will be supplied as soon as that is done.
LORD ISLINGTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Duke for the very explicit answers he has given to my Questions and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, I think that before the noble Lord withdraws his Motion, both he and the most rev. Primate may expect a few words to come from me. The noble Duke has answered with fulness and precision the Questions that have been addressed to him from different quarters of the House that mainly affect his Department. But it is quite true, as the most rev. Primate pointed out, that outside the frontiers of the Colonial Department, in its relation to Mandated territories, lies a somewhat undefined range of country which concerns the Government as a whole, and, in some respects, the Foreign Office in particular; and certainly, should be the last to complain on any occasion of this sort if questions were put to which the representative of the Colonial Office was unable, or felt it undesirable, to answer, but as to which a reply might legitimately be demanded from me.
When the most rev. Primate alluded to the fact that the Duke of Sutherland had,
784
in respect of one of these points, excused himself from replying, because it was a Foreign Office question, that was done with the deliberate object of finding an opening for myself, with the knowledge on his part that I was here ready to give the reply which he could not give. No one on this Bench could for a moment complain that any of these discussions on Mandates represented a worrying or pestering attitude —I quote the words of the most rev. Primate—on the part of this House. The House is entitled to seek for information on this subject.
As more than one speaker has said, we are moving in an area of considerable obscurity; but it is an obscurity for which the Government are not responsible, which they are not in every case able to dispel, and which arises from the nature of the problem we are discussing. Several noble Lords have alluded to certain of the conditions which explain that position. The first of these is the nature of the Covenant itself. Not even a trained lawyer could attach a clear meaning to many of its phrases. There are certain passages in Article 22 (I think) of the Covenant, which it is perfectly possible, with sincerity, to interpret in more than one way, and about which interpretation has constantly been sought, quite fairly, from the Government in this House.
I myself am not certain that it was not a. mistake in policy that when the Allied statesmen met in Paris, in their extreme anxiety to get the League of Nations put upon what one may call the International Statute Book, they rushed almost with precipitation to discuss questions which would, as we see now, have been much better solved if they had been postponed. I cannot help thinking that if, instead of drawing up these regulations for the better government of the world in the future, they had endeavoured to end the war and to secure the peace of the world as it then was, we should have been much further advanced in conditions of peace than we now are. We all know perfectly well the particular impulse under which that line was taken. We do not now want to utter reproaches to those who have passed away from the active scene of politics. But many of our difficulties in the sphere of international affairs do, in my judgment, arise front the wrong turn that was taken when the Conference first assembled in Paris.

785
With regard to those Questions put today which seemed to appertain rather to my Department than to the Colonial Office, they are in the main two in number. The first Question, put I think by Lord Islington, was whether the Draft Mandates had been communicated to the American Government before submission to the Council of the League of Nations; and, if not, why not? What happened was this. I think it was at the end of November, 1920, that, in the course of a communication from the American Secretary of State, an inquiry came to His Majesty's Government as to whether they would be disposed to communicate the Draft Mandates—I forget whether this referred to Category "A" or to the Draft Mandates ill general—to the American Government. Just at the moment that that letter arrived, the Draft Mandates had been sent to the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva, and had been officially handed to them by Mr. Balfour on our behalf. 1t was, therefore, impossible for us to do exactly what the American Government desired.
Almost immediately afterwards, we learned that the American Government, hearing that the Draft Mandates had passed into the hands of the Council of the League at Geneva, had addressed a letter to them, pointing out the request that they had directed to us, and asking the good offices of the Council of the League in reply to their question. I have here the reply which was sent by the Council of the League of Nations to the American Government. It is dated March, 1921. I may perhaps be permitted to read two or three paragraphs of that reply—
"The Council had already determined on February 21., before the receipt of the American Note, to postpone the consideration of the "A" Mandates fur former Turkish possessions, including Mesopotamia. No conclusion will, therefore, be reached with regard to "A" Mandates until the United States Government has had an opportunity to express its views. The Council had expected to approve finally, at the session now being held, the "B" Mandates for the former Central African colonies for Germany. In view of the desire expressed by the United States, the Council is, however, deferring its consideration of those Mandates until its next session. which will probably take place in May or June. It is hoped that the delay will not hamper the administrative progress of these territories.
" The Council invites the United States to take part in the discussions at its forthcoming meeting, when the final decisions as to the "A" and "B" Mandates will, it is hoped, be taken. A problem so intricate and involved as that of Mandates can hardly be handled by the inter-
786
change of formal Notes. It can only be satisfactorily solved by personal contact and by direct exchange of opinion.
Your Lordships will see what the. reply of the League was. They pointed out to the American Government that there would be a considerable postponement before the discussion took place; they cordially invited the American Government to assume connection with the League and to take part in the discussions; and they felt confident that, by the ordinary channels of information—as was the case—the Draft Mandates would be in the hands of the American Government before that date. I think, therefore, that any charge of discourtesy on the part of anybody falls to the ground.
What is happening now is this. Not only has there been a postponement of the discussion of these Mandates until the meeting in the month of June—which, indeed, is taking place at this moment—but the Council of the League has, I believe, decided, or is likely to decide, for independent reasons, which I will name, to allow a further postponement. The further reason this; the American Government, under President Harding, as the House is aware, has resumed a more active interest in the affairs of the world. Certainly no one, and certainly no representative of His Majesty's Government, regards this resumed interest on their part with more cordial goodwill and satisfaction than myself. The more we get America, in the form best suited to her own feelings and desires, to resume with us in peace that co-operation to which we owed so much in war, the better it will be for the rapid recovery of the peace of the world. I merely say that in passing.
During the past few weeks, the head of the President's Administration in America, quite apart from the view that he may entertain concerning the League of Nations itself, with which your Lordships are familiar, has expressed a strong view that, as one of the Allied and Associated Powers, America is entitled to be consulted before the Mandates are finally settled. There is force and reason in that view, and I am not disposed to differ from. it; and I believe that the League of Nations are likely to reply that, holding those views themselves, they have decided again to postpone the consideration of the Mandates and that they trust that the Governments who are concerned will enter into com-

787
munication with the American Government in the interval. By the interval I mean before the meeting of the Assembly in September. We shall all agree that there must be a period to this uncertainty, and for my own part, if that invitation, if that suggestion, conies to me from the Council of the League of Nations, I shall be quite prepared to act upon it and to enter into discussions as suggested.
Now there remains the point about publicity, and about the right of Parliament to have a voice in these matters, and the stages at which that right may legitimately be claimed and exercised by Parliament. I think that, possibly owing to a certain lack of precision on my own part on the occasion of a former speech, I may have given some justification for the suspicions, which I believe were somewhat widely entertained, as to the views of the Government in this matter. My noble friend, Lord Islington, vented upon me a measured volume of wrath in the columns of the daily Press, and to-day, although he treated me with great amiability, when he talked about unconstitutional procedure I cannot help thinking that he directed a somewhat fiery eye upon myself. I had no desire, nor have the Government any desire, to suggest anything unconstitutional. Of course, these are matters which at some stage or other, and I dare say at more than one stage, Parliament must be allowed to discuss in both Houses.
Let us look at exactly what is happening. The Mandates were originally confirmed, in the exercise of rights conferred upon them by the Treaties, by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. They then proceeded to draw up Draft Mandates, and communicate them to the Council of the League of Nations. I explained on a previous occasion that as an act of courtesy we thought we should best be discharging our duty by handing over the Drafts to the Council of the League, and I said then that I did not see that there would by any advantage in having a discussion in Parliament at that stage. I think what has passed shows that I was right, because, supposing we had had a discussion in Parliament on the Drafts that were submitted in December last, how would that have advanced matters? I have not the slightest idea what views the Council of the League may take upon the Drafts. It is conceivable that they may suggest amendments to us in many particulars. The
788
successive postponements that have taken place, and the intervention of America, constitute another obstacle, and I can conceive that in a short time the Mandates may assume a form in which they are legitimately open for, discussion by Parliament, but in which they may differ considerably from the form which they presented some months ago.
Now let me take the matter to another stage. I think it was Lord Islington who alluded to the Articles of the Draft Mandate for Mesopotamia, providing for the creation of an Organic Law, and he stated, justly, that that Organic Law will really create the future Constitution of the country. Very true. And at the present moment this Organic Law for Mesopotamia, and a corresponding instrument defining the exact constitutional position in Palestine, are being carefully drawn up in consultation with the High Commissioners of both countries, and in close touch with local opinion. That, much more than the Mandate, will really be the form of government under which the administration of those countries, subject to the general supervision of the Mandatory Power, will be exercised in future. When that Organic Law and that Constitution are drawn up they will be submitted to the League of Nations.
I have not the slightest objection to their being submitted to both Houses of Parliament in advance, and to discussions taking place upon them then, or upon the Draft Mandates now. The noble Viscount, or anybody else, has only to put down a Motion for discussion of the Draft Mandates in the form in which they are laid before Parliament, and I and the noble Duke, acting for the Colonial Office, will be quite ready to meet him. I should have no objection myself if at each stage Parliament were brought into the matter—at the stage when the Organic Law is brought up, before it goes to the Council of the League, and when it comes back from the Council of the League, if you like. This House enjoys, as we all know, enormous advantages in the arrangement of its business, greater than those possessed, I believe, by any other legislative assembly in the world. Any noble Lord, taking advantage of our rather ample leisure, has only to put a Motion on the Paper. That step having been taken, he is at liberty to wander about over the whole face of the world. I have often admired these peri-

789
patetic rambles, awl I am always ready, having been a traveller myself, to take part in them. Therefore, I do not think that it lies in the mouth of anybody in this House to complain of lack of opportunity.
I have given a sort of tip as to the opportunities which may be taken advantage of, and I hope I have said enough to indicate, firstly, the difficulties, inherent in the situation itself, that are not yet solved, secondly, the desire of the Government to mitigate the difficulties for the convenience of Parliament, and, thirdly, our willingness to provide every reasonable opportunity, at every stage of these matters, so that this country may not find itself involved in responsibilities and obligations in the confirmation of which it has not had sufficient part before they cane into operation.
LORD ISLINGTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE INDUSTRIAL CRISIS.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I desire to draw attention to suggestions that have been made that the response of the Miners to the proposals made by the Government might be larger if the men understood the terms offered them better; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is possible to take any steps for this purpose. I should like first to say that I put down this Question not with any intention of making more difficult the difficult water through which the Government is steering us just now (at least I hope it is steering us through) in this coal question; nor did I put it down as one associated either with owners or with miners, or even with any of the great industries in this country. I put it down as a member of the large general public, who find themselves sandwiched rather uncomfortably at present between these competitors.
In my Notice I draw attention to suggestions that have been made on certain lines. My interest in those suggestions was aroused by a letter which appeared in The Times of last Monday from Sir John Lister Kaye. In that letter he put in a strong plea for the 183,827 miners who had accepted the Government terms. He says in his letter that in his view—
790
" They have the right to claim that, having accepted the terms, they must be allowed to exercise their right to return to work in their various collieries at once on the terms and conditions which they have accepted."
That, I think, is a proposition with which everybody would agree and which, I think, the Government would be only too glad to see carried out.
But, beyond that, Sir Joint Lister Kaye, in the same letter, made another plea, which was the particular plea which interested me. He said that out of the large number of 957,610 voters you have a certain number of acceptances, but you have also 341,272 men who abstained from voting altogether. His point was that if, by some machinery—which at that time he did not suggest—you could get these lymphatic non-voters more fully apprised of the position in which they find themselves, and of the terms from which they had turned away and if, having done that, you could give them a week or ten days during which they might have time to reconsider the position, not only as regards the community and as regards industry, but as regards themselves, it was possible that those 341,272 voters would cast in their lot with the 183,827 who had accepted the Government's terms.
I do not suppose Sir John was acting entirely alone. He comes of mining interests a long way back, and I have no doubt he has been in communication with other people who know a great deal about this subject, which I do not pretend to know. And I think it is very possible that the view is held by a good many people that the lymphatic non-voters did not vote, possibly because they did not take the trouble to master, or, having tried to master, did not understand, the terms; or, possibly again, because (which is very common) they did not wish to burn their fingers by voting in a way which perhaps their own particular friends were not taking; or (which is more likely still, and which I am told informally has been the case in some parts of England, Scotland and Wales) they were under the impression that, by abstaining from voting, they would be held to mean that they consented to the terms.
When I read Sir John Lister Kaye's letter, intuitively (I will not put it higher than that, for I have no special knowledge) I said, "Here is a proposal out of which, at all events, something might be made"; but I confess that in the first

791
letter there was nothing resembling any machinery to achieve anything of this kind. I wrote to him and said, "I like your letter, but I wish to goodness you would tell us how you mean to do it. Who is to bring these people in?" Since then, in to-day's Times, you will see that he does carry his suggestion a long step further. In his letter to-day he says:
" If a Proclamation were to be posted at once at every colliery in the United Kingdom, and at the same time published in every newspaper in the United Kingdom, to the effect that His Majesty's Government is prepared, subject to the approval of the Miners' Federation, to consider that the 183,827 miners who voted in favour of accepting the terms offered by the Government and by the owners are justified in now, at once, returning to work in their respective collieries "—
that would give au opportunity to the mine managers to explain in every mine exactly what the Government's terms were; and, if action could be delayed in sonic way, to keep things going for another week or ten days, it is possible that, by so doing, you could get the other people to join up with the 183,827 miners who have accepted the Government's terms.
What I like especially in this second letter is that he says nothing of this sort could possibly with any advantage be done unless it is done with the full and informed approval of the Miners' Federation. I myself attach immense importance to that being done. In this very serious quarrel I confess that from first to last I have, to some extent, been a miners' man. I think the miners were put in a very awkward position. I ant not distributing any blame, but I ant not at all disposed to praise the action which the Government took at the time of de-controlling. For that reason I attach enormous importance to the fact that this proposal, if there is anything in it, would have to be carried out with the full assent of the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation.
Some people tell me that the Miners' Federation and those who direct this movement are, in the slang of the day, "out for" something quite different. They say it is not a mining question, but that what they are "out for," in the scientific jargon of the day, is altering the whole relativity of Capital and Labour. That is very possible, although I am not at all clear whether it is so. Let us say it is not so. I think it is just possible that the Miners' Federation would not mind if a proposal of this sort were taken hold of and carried out by His
792
Majesty's Government, because it might possibly get them out of a situation which they regard as awkward, but out of which they do not see their way at present; so that they feel they must stand by what they said originally. I cannot believe that the people of this country are so determined to cut their own throats and everybody else's, financially at all events, by going on with this disastrous quarrel. I do not. say that the proposals I have mentioned are ideal, or even practical, but I should be glad to know whether His Majesty's Government have any intention of considering something upon those lines.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I feel very great sympathy with the suggestion that has been made by my noble friend, Lord Ribblesdale, but before the Government reply there are a few remarks I should like to make. It may be very useful to make a very plain statement of the terms that have been offered so that the men may consider them. I see that good might come of that. but I confess that I have not. any very great confidence in an apparent result. The fact is that the men are very much more intelligent about these things than we give them credit for being. They have their own local newspapers. They are discussing this subject all day long. They know very well what these terms are. What they have been fighting for are not sixpences and shillings, not wages simply. but the conditions under which they carry an their industry.
It is a great mistake to suppose that they are penetrated by the spirit of Bolshevism. Of course, there are Bolshevists and violent men among them, but I do not believe that those constitute more than the merest fraction of the,Treat mass of the mining community, which I know fairly well. There are also people of very advanced views about the relations of Labour and Capital, who think this is a very good opportunity for making souse very sudden and great change. But these, again, are a minority. If you go about, not only among the miners but among the people who have. been most in contact with them, you will find this, which I believe is at the bottom of the whole of the present difficulty—they are dissatisfied with the present general scheme under which a small handful of people control what is an absolutely arterial industry to this country and that on which the lives and well-being of a

793
million miners, with their wives and families, depend. They say that that asset is too great an asset, both as regards the nation and as regards themselves, to remain uncontrolled, as it does at present, in private hands. But it is a, long way from that proposition to the scheme which the Miners' Federation put forward for taking over the complete control of the industry by the miners themselves. They brought forward a Bill which I do not think was a well thought out Bill, and I am not personally in favour of it.
Then again there was the proposition of the Sankey Commission. It is a great mistake to think that was a proposition for immediate nationalisation. Very few people have taken the trouble to study the Report of the Sankey Commission. Had they studied it they would have found that it proposed to substitute for the present system what was really a great State Department, much like the Navy or the Army, arid to train very carefully the officials for it. It was a. Report which was against bureaucracy, of which people can see the results in its failure when applied to the direct management and control of an industry. But the Sankey Commission asked far a great deal of training on the part of the officials of the future Departments.
If yon want to bring this strike to an end and restore tranquillity, I say that you will have to do something more than merely get the men to go below the surface and accept wages again. They will be compelled to do that by the force of starvation. before very long, because you are entitled to fight this question, but you Neill have another strike of this kind before very long. Speaking in this House last July, I ventured to prophesy that a strike was inevitable, because the Government had suddenly decided to de-control the industry. Of course, that came about, and you had what always comes upon you if you do not think out what is lying ahead of you. To-day, we are not thinking out what lies ahead of us and if we induced the men to go back to-morrow we should still be in a position of great peril in regard to a matter that goes to our very life-blood.
I am not here to suggest any particular plan. There are many plans, and a great deal of information is now available, but I urge upon the Government that instead of taking the line of fighting this out when they can get a victory for which they will
794
be sorry a little later, they should take the step which would satisfy the miners that they really are considering the very large question which has now been raised. We are not talking as we might have done ten years ago. We are talking to-day after the war, with new standards, about the new ideas in the minds of the workmen. Very well. Satisfy the workmen that you are in earnest in trying to find out whether there is something wrong, and, if there is, to put it right. There are very eminent men with whom you could co-operate in bringing about this investigation, and if you satisfied the miners that you were really sincere in it, I think you would not only bring this strike to an end more surely than in any other way, but you would do it with some security about the future. You would inspire that confidence which you are certainly not inspiring in the minds of the miners at the present time.
If that be so, it is a change of attitude on the part of the Government which is required. If that were accompanied by some very plain statement as to the effect on wages which my noble friend has suggested, I think it would be very good. But I confess that the one without the other does not give me any confidence that the result will be obtained. I rise only for the purpose of pressing upon the Government the necessity of realising that the question they are trying to settle is a much wider one than it is currently and popularly reputed to be.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend, Lord Haldane, has said, and in one matter I most strongly agree with him. I do not like the idea, of fighting this matter out, if it can possibly be settled in any other way. I do not know whether the condition of things to-day is such that any debate in your Lordships' House, or in another place, can help matters. I very much doubt it. My noble friend, Lord Haldane, has thrown out some suggestions, but I do wish, in regard to this matter, that he would not be so vague. He says that we are not thinking it out. Good Heavens!what else have we been thinking about for many months past? I had no intention of speaking when I came down and I may not put the case very clearly, but if I may offer my own theory of the situation, I sincerely believe that the miners, like a great many other people, have suffered a good deal of psycho-

795
logical upset owing to the war and what followed the war.
I know they want new conditions of work. I wish they could have new conditions of work. But how are they going to get them? The noble Viscount himself will not have the miners' own scheme. Mr. Justice Sankey's scheme I have read over and over and over again, and it certainly would lead to bureaucratism. Take the case of export coal. The Sankey scheme suggests that no coal may be sold for export purposes at any price which shall give an advantage to the buyer or be a disadvantage to the seller. I forget the precise words; but the carrying out of any such scheme as that means an immense amount of bureaucratism, the creation of a large number of officials who do not exist to-day, in order to see that no unfairness is done. Whenever the Government undertakes business you will always have that. In ordinary private enterprise a man does no wrong according to our ethical code—and I think our ethical code, on the whole, is right as regards that matter—in selling at different prices to different people, even on the same day. He himself has to consider whether he is going to lose or gain by it, but the Government cannot do that. They have to treat everybody alike. I maintain that it is a hopeless idea that you are going to get an advantage by bringing Government control into this industry.
I think the position of the miners is a very natural one owing to the upset of the war. During the war prices of the commodity in which they are interested were controlled, but their wages were very much advanced, and I am afraid that they got into the way of believing they had only to ask to have. Now they are confronted by this problem. Our export trade has gone, apparently, for the time being. That is a disastrous thing for England. What is to become of our shipping if our export trade in coal goes? Every day that this strike is prolonged the potential demand for coal, after the strike is over, is less. There is not the demand for coal; there will not be a sufficient demand for it when this disastrous strike is finished to keep all these miners working, and that is the horrible tragedy of it.
I know we want a change. I sympathise wholly with labour in their desire to have greater control of industry. I wish people would think this problem out. But what
796
incentive is there, from anything that has happened anywhere else in this wide world, to induce us to embark on a scheme of nationalisation? Does Australia, for instance, give us ally hope that it will be a good thing? Does New Zealand with her little experience? Does Germany in her management of the mines? I have never seen a more complete denunication of nationalisation than that which is contained in the report, made practically by Socialists in Germany, upon the nationalised mines of Germany since the Revolution. When you come to Russia—which is the great example—what is the condition of things? There, the one vital necessity is coal, and has been all the time; yet in the great coal-producing area of Russia they are not producing to-day more than one-fifth or one-sixth of what they produced before the war. There is no reason why they should not produce as much, had things been properly managed. With regard to their other great industries, they are producing in even less proportion. That is the result of Bolshevism. I am afraid that you would have very much the same result if you proceeded with any hurried scheme of nationalisation in this country, because by it you are going to remove the inducement to work. What is the answer to all this?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Think it out.
LORD EMMOTT: Yes; I have been doing my best to think it out. My solution —I dare say my noble friend will say it is impossible—is profit-sharing and co-partnership. I believe that by that, and that alone, will you arrive at what we want—the greater interest of the workers both in profits and in control, and a retention of that inducement to work which is the most important matter of all, and which hitherto every scheme of nationalisation has removed.
LORD TENTERDEN: My Lords, in reference to what the noble Lord who has just sat down said, I would point out that we have all been considering this question for some time. The noble Lord is not the only member of this House who has taken a great interest in it. Not less interest has been taken in it by other members of your Lordships' House, and by the members of the House of Commons, and by the public. We have all considered it, and

797
considered it seriously and carefully, because we know that it is a vital matter to the nation. But have the miners been considering it? I do not think the noble Lord sufficiently took into consideration the fact that the miners themselves have not really grasped the offer which has been made to them, and which they have refused. I maintain that the way in which that offer was put before the miners was quite sufficient to invite them to refuse it. I do not know who is to blame for the way in which it has been put before the miners. I suppose it is the Miners' Executive. But, whoever is responsible, it has been put before them as an owners' and a capitalists' offer, and capitalism is the very thing they have been fighting against tooth and nail all this time, and for which they have undergone endless privations.
Is it likely, being Britishers and having fought so long, that they are going to say, "I will give in"? If they were to say that, after putting up such a fight, they Certainly would not belong to this country. I think it is unfortunate that the offer should have been put before them as an owners' proposition, and some additional effort on the part of the Government should be made to state that it is a proposition with special new concessions granted by the owners—generous concessions—and a national subsidy of £10,000,000. I think if that had been put more clearly before the miners the result of the ballot would have been different. My view is that the miners themselves do not understand the question. They have been led away, possibly, by an element of Bolshevism.
I myself have had some experience of dealing with labour during the War. It may be within the recollection of your Lordships that I frequently brought forward Questions:in this House in connection with the manufacture of munitions. I was associated with more than one factory. One of the factories with which I was connected made aeroplanes. I took care that we worked hard, and got the best results. How was that done? By going to the factory myself. I remember being rung up on the telephone one day by the manager, who said: "If you do not come down they are all going to walk out of the factory." I said: "What are you there for? Why don't you go and talk to them, and explain matters. What is the trouble?" He then told me that they did not want to have a night shift, and that
798
they complained that some were better paid than others. He went on to say that one or two of their leaders were going to walk out of the factory, and that the rest would follow them. I asked him if he had made any effort to explain to them that it was for their own good, and for their country's good, that they should stay at work. He said he had done so, but without result, and that if I did not go down there would be a strike. I went down immediately in a taxi-cab, brought the men out, and shook hands with them, and invited them to sit down and tell me what was the trouble. They told me, and in half an hour they had arranged the whole difficulty for me, and I had no more bother.
I am convinced that if the directors of factories would take more personal interest in their works, instead of leaving it to the managers—who have been promoted from among the men themselves, and who are not inclined to take an impartial interest, and to investigate and prevent troubles—a great many strikes, which now take place, would never occur. I would go further than the noble Lord, Lord. Ribblesdale, who suggested that you should give the men who are going back the chance of getting some portion of the Government subsidy. I would put the whole thing before the men again, and invite a second ballot, and let every man have a chance of knowing exactly what the offer is, and of voting upon it. If that were done I am convinced the result would be different.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I think everybody will be obliged to my noble friend, Lord Ribblesdale, for making at this time any suggestion which may tend either to bring to an end or mitigate the terrible industrial strife in which we are now engaged. From the point of view of the Government there is a most deplorable ignorance in many quarters as to many political and social issues. I am afraid that at the last few elections there has been no sign that the virtues of the Coalition have either been sufficiently appreciated or understood by the large majority of the voters.
The suggestion of the noble Lord leads into considerations far wider than one specified industrial dispute. It raises the question as to how far the Government should make use of its position to spread information and views and opinions on

799
particular questions. There is a great deal of hostility in many quarters to Publicity Departments. Only a few days ago the President of the Board of Trade announced not a diminution, but the entire abolition, of the Publicity Department of the Board of Trade. In these days of earnest desire for economy no Departments have been more criticised than these Publicity Departments.
The speech of the noble and learned Viscount seemed to me to cut away the ground entirely from the proposals of the noble Lord. Lord Haldane's contention was, in effect, that it would be perfectly useless to put before the miners particular proposals of the Government or the owners. According to him, it was not a question of pounds, shillings and pence. it was something far more pronounced, something affecting the whole relations of Capital and Labour, and, therefore, the suggestion of the noble Lord would not at all meet the view taken by the noble and learned Viscount. He again raises a far more difficult problem. If you connect the views of the noble Lord and the noble and learned Viscount you would have the Government engaged in a strenous system of publicity, possibly advocating its own view of these profound problems.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I said investigation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Viscount is interested not so much in investigation as in clarity of thinking. I rather regretted sonic of the expressions he used. When we are all hoping that these troubles will come to an end, he seems to suggest to those engaged in the dispute to go on, on the ground that the Government might make some change at the last moment. It throws, at any rate, an absurd light on the proposals of the noble Lord. If the Government themselves so thoroughly misunderstand the whole industrial situation, it would be absurd for them to try to explain it to the miners.
There is another difficulty which. I do not think is fully realised by the noble Lord. The first thing that strikes one is that in dealing with the miners you are not dealing with them individually but with their representatives, and it is extremely difficult and dangerous to go behind their representatives to the people themselves. We all remember one dis-
800
tinguished man, who, not being satisfied with a decision of the Government of Italy, said he would go beyond the Government and appeal to the people. I never heard that his Proclamation was well received by the Government of Italy. If the Government say they will go direct to the men themselves and explain these matters to them, they will be accused by the leaders of not putting the issue fairly, or, through their ignorance, of spoiling the situation.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: To the best of my control of English and putting English words together, I thought I made it clear that my proposals were entirely subject to the approval of the executive committee of the Miners' Federation.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Lord spoke with absolute clearness and I think I apprehended him clearly. I am now dealing with the general proposition of the difficulty of dealing with the men and not with their leaders. Any trouble that would subsequently arise would, with absolute certainty, be put down to the fact that the Government intervened, and it would he said that it was their clumsiness which spoilt everything. The noble Lord —I give him credit for the suggestion—said this should be done with the leave, informally or otherwise, of the miners' leaders. I never like to say "No" to a valuable suggestion. What I think would be said of that is that the matter has already been put very clearly by the miners' leaders themselves to their men, and to suggest that the Government should do so implies a want of lucidity on the part of the miners' representatives.
I differ from the noble Lord behind me. I read the statement on the ballot paper as to the general nature of the terms which were offered by the Government and the owners to the miners. I think it was a model of lucidity, and I doubt very much whether some of the distinguished draftsmen present could have improved upon it. Certainly, the Ministry of Labour considered it an admirable and clear statement of the position, and doubted whether it could have been put any better. That would be the answer which would be given to the noble Lord.
LORD TENTERDEN: It was published in the papers as the owners' terms.
VISCOUNT PEEL: If that was so it was published wrongly. I have here the proposal in the ballot paper which says "Government and the owners." Whether a. more definite statement can be made I do not know. Lord Ribblesdale will do the Government this justice, that constantly, in replying to Questions in Parliament and otherwise, statements, and I think clear statements, are given out and published in all the papers. Whether anything more could be done I do not know. If we have no autumn session members will be able to go to their constituencies and explain the matter, hilt I doubt whether any advantage would be obtained by adopting the noble Lord's proposal. As regards reading matter we have great difficulty, as we know, in the constituencies, of getting people to read anything. We have pushed under their doors thousands of pamphlets which are not used for the purpose of literature but for very much humbler purposes. I will not follow Lord Emmott into the effect of the strike on our export trade which is, of course, so great, but I will bring his remarks to the notice of the Department.
LORD ISLINGTON: My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than one moment, but this is certainly the most urgent and grave matter with which we have to deal at the present time. I am not going to attempt to discuss the speeches which have been made by noble Lords on either side, but I feel that the point which was made by my noble friend was not the real point at issue. I do not think it is a question of lucidity of explanation to the miners that influenced Lord Ribblesdale in bringing forward this question. What he desires to obtain from the Government is an assurance that they will still use all their powers of intervention to keep the door open for a final and an early settlement.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is quite a different Quest-ion from the one on the Paper.
LORD ISLINGTON: It may be a different Question, or a different way of approaching it, but I cannot help thinking that it is a perfectly orthodox way of approaching it, because it would not mean, as my noble friend suggests, that the Government would be going to the men behind the back of the official organisation,
802
for, as I understand it, before anything was done, the proposal would go directly and formally to the executive of the Miners' Federation, and, of course, if they refused to entertain it, then that effort would prove an abortive one. But I cannot help thinking that the miners' executive, just as must be the case with all the parties concerned now, as it is undoubtedly with the nation, are not only desirous of keeping the matter open for a settlement, but are becoming urgently desirous of bringing about a settlement. Looking at the matter from that point of view, I would urge my noble friend, from the responsible position that he occupies as a member of the Government, to use his influence, and to ask his colleagues to consider this as a possible effort by means of which the door may be kept open, and a settlement reached.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I must thank the noble Viscount for his very clear reply to my Question. I am not going to make a speech now, but it is, of course, quite plain that, if Lord Haldane is right, the miners' executive may snap their lingers at my proposal. If, on the other hand, Lord Haldane is wrong, I believe that. something might still be done. This is not my suggestion; I am only representing it. I think it provides an opportunity, and I submit it, not only to His Majesty's Government, but to every thinking man—or rather, not only to every thinking man, but to every man who burns a fire, or who is interested in the trade of the country—that something of that sort is worth trying, even now.
[From Minutes of June 22.]

POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday next.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read lªto be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2ª(Lord Stanmore), and reported from the Committee.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read lªto be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
PRESTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons for copy of the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings and the documents deposited in the case: Ordered to be communicated with a request that they may be returned.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  SWANSEA GAS BILL.
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WOLVERTON ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Committee (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Tuesday the 5th of July next.
TAF FECHAN VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Joint Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CONSOLIDATION BILL PROCEDURE.
Leave given to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills to report from time to
time.

TAF FECHAN VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]

    RHYMNEY VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
    RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that Lord Abinger be proposed to the House as a member of the Joint Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Sand-
which; read, and agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.