§ 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.
751§ 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.
§ LORD PARMOORI 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 SUTHERLANDMy 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 PARMOORMy 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 SUTHERLANDI shall be glad to give the noble Lord any futher information if he will give me previous notice.